Bk.3, Ch.10, "The Voice of Saruman"

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Crossposted to RABT.

Let me just start by saying, that due to a 6-month stay in Dublin,
where apparently it still is not a given to provide students
residences with an Internet connection I have been unable to follow
the discussions properly since New Years. Therefore, I might be
touching on some points that have already been discussed. For that
I'm sorry, but I simply don't have time to start going through the
google archives to read all the discussions to each and every chapter.
Since I have now been transferred from Dublin to Warsaw, I have
arrived at a place where things such as an Internet connection is a
lot easier to get hold of than in Dublin, so from now on I should be
able to participate properly in discussions. Beginning this week with
my favourite chapter: The Voice of Saruman.
The chapter starts by a description of Isengard after the water has
subsided, showing how polluted the entire site must have been.
Merry - in nice hobbit fashion - tells Gandalf, that he feels less
ill-disposed towards Saruman now that he (Merry) has had the chance
to eat, drink and smoke from Saruman's storeroom. (1) Gandalf says
that his opinion of Saruman has not changed and that he must have a
last meeting with him.
Gandalf warns Pippin and Gimli about the dangers of Saruman - they are
advised to be aware of Saruman's voice.
Gandalf, Éomer, Théoden , Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli walk the stairs
of Orthanc to speak to Saruman, while Merry and Pippin are left at
the bottom step. (2)
Wormtongue asks from a window who it is and what they want. (3)
Gandalf demands to speak to Saruman. Then follows a description of
the magical properties of Saruman's voice. Its powerful effects are
described quite vividly, and no one could remain unmoved by it.
Saruman mentions that he knows at least two of the names of the
people on his doorstep: Théoden and Gandalf. He addresses Théoden
first, trying to convince him, that Saruman is the only one who can
help him now and that the former white wizard does not hold a grudge,
even though so much harm has been done to him. We learn that most of
the men in the army started believing Saruman's words, but that Gimli
sees through the rhetoric. (4) At this point Saruman reveals that he
knows the name - and ancestry - of Gimli as well. (5)
Éomer starts talking, when Théoden remains silent, in order to
counter the influence of the voice on hi master, just to be mocked by
Saruman: "Slay whom your lord names as enemies, and be content.
Meddle not in policies which you do not understand." Saying that only
kings understand Realpolitk, where power is more important than
friendship. Again, Saruman reveals that he knew the name of Éomer all
the way long.
Saruman then makes an interesting point: that he cannot be called a
murderer, just because some men died in a battle, that Saruman claims
he did not desire. If that were the case, then all great kings of
Rohan would be murderers too. He then offers peace to Théoden, who
rejects if after a few seconds of silence, saying that he will have
piece once Saruman hangs from a gibbet. (6) (7)
After this refusal, Saruman mocks Rohan and her equestrians, just to
address Gandalf beginning with a few compliments. (8) His way of
talking to Gandalf is masterfully described as the way a kindly king
would talk to "an erring, but much loved minister." Saruman offers,
that he and Gandalf should join forces for their common good and
ignore the lesser folk. Apparently, all the people listening, even
Théoden, feared that Gandalf would accept the offer and leave them to
whatever destiny the wise might decide for them. (9)
Gandalf just laughs at the offer, and after ridiculing Saruman he
offers him to come down and leave Orthanc as a free man, but with out
his staff and with out the key to Orthanc.
Saruman turns this offer into a powerful attack on Gandalf,
suggesting that all Gandalf wants is more power for himself and that
Gandalf will not be satisfied until he owns the crowns of seven kings
(10) and the rods of the Five Wizards. (11) After this rant, he turns
to leave, but Gandalf orders him to stay and Saruman obeys.
Gandalf rebukes Saruman for his pride and then declares himself as
Gandalf the White and casts Saruman from the order and the Council,
breaking Saruman 's staff with a spell. (12)
Saruman leaves the balcony and at the same time, Wormtounge threw a
large shiny ball out of the window. (13) Pippin picks up the item,
but Gandalf quickly takes it from him, hiding it in his cloak, while
suggesting that it was an item of great importance.
They descend the stairs and are saluted by the host. The spell of
Saruman's voice is broken after they have seen him obey Gandalf.
Merry asks whether there could have been a different outcome to the
debate and Gandalf answers that it would not be likely, but that he
had to try for several reasons. Saruman could still have been of
value if he had mended his ways. Gandalf says that he does not wish
for mastery. (14)
Treebeard approaches and Gandalf introduces him to Aragorn, Gimli and
Legolas. Legolas is of interest to the Ent, since he is an Elf and
from Mirkwood. Legolas then asks politely for permission to walk in
Fangorn Forest with his friend, to which Treebeard says that he shall
be welcome with any Elf. Legolas admits that his friend in question
is not an Elf, but Gimli the dwarf. Treebeard is somewhat sceptical
of Gimli, because he is a) a dwarf and b) an axe-bearer, but when
Legolas explains that the axe is for orc-necks and that Gimli killed
42 orcs in the battle Treebeard gives his permission. (15)
Treebeard tells us that he has made a few new lines concerning
Hobbits to the Long List. He tells the Merry and Pippin to keep an
eye open for any sign of the Entwives and says that Saruman's heart
is as rotten as a black Huorn's. (16) That cannot be nice.
Treebeard promises Gandalf to re-flood Isengard and keep a permanent
watch over Saruman.
1) How does Merry now about the dangers of the loose slabs? Sounds
like
e - or Pippin - might have been close to having an accident...
2) Gimli argues that he and Legolas should go with Gandalf, because
they are the only ones of their kin, but so are Merry and Pippin. Why
do they not want to go? One would think that at least Merry would
want to go on behalf of all hobbits? Are they just too afraid of
Saruman? Why does not Gandalf offer them to go? Does he fear the
influence of Saruman's voice is stronger on the hobbits - perhaps
because they are simpler folk? But even if that is the case, they
must still be able to hear him from the bottom step...
3) I always found this paragraph somewhat strange. It sounds like
Wormtongue is answering the doorbell in some suburban house, where he
is just trying to avoid annoying sales-men. Surely, he must have some
idea who is standing in front of him.
4) How does Gimli see through the rhetoric? He does not strike me as
being particularly bright or anything? And why are we not told what
Legolas and Aragorn felt about the voice? Not to mention Merry and
Pippin.
I wonder whether the voice has different effects on different races,
just like the Ring apparently has less of an effect on Hobbits than
on Humans.
5) Why did Saruman pretend that he only knew the names of Gandalf and
Théoden? It has already been made clear to our heroes, that
Wormtongue - who knew about all the members of the company - is in
the tower and would of course have told Saruman of his encounter with
the travellers in the hall of Théoden .
6) How come Théoden is able to resist Saruman's voice? One would
think that he was prone to being convinced, since Wormtongue was able
to manipulate him so effectively and Saruman is a lot more powerful
than Wormtongue.
7) A gibbet? That I the first time we hear of such things in LotR
IIRC. Seems like someone must have been executing people that way -
and apparently not just the bad guys. Do we hear of civilized people
using executions anywhere else in the books?
8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead. And if he did
not, then he does not really show any signs of wondering why
Gandalf's appearance has changed.
9) How do we know what Théoden felt? Should he have told Merry
"Hey, for a moment there, I thought we were screwed!"
10) Why seven? Is it just a random number or does it refer to
anything? I thought about the 7 rings for the dwarf-lords, but why
would Saruman refer to that?
11) This could turn out as a discussion of the movie-ism... The power
of the staff is evidently much different in the movies than in the
book. Apparently, you cannot just replace the staff with a new one in
the book. So what is the power of the staffs? It seems like it is not
only a matter of prestige, but that they hold actual powers, which is
why Gandalf should desire to own all five. They must have different
powers then? Or what do you think?
Oh. and we could also start a lengthy discussion about the three other
Wizards.
12) Where does Gandalf get authority to do this? You would think that
things like these cannot be so easily decided by just one member of
the order.
13) Why didn't Wormtongue, who must have been in Orthanc for a while,
know what the item was? It cannot have been hidden from him or
anything, since he could get to it so easily and one would think,
that Saruman must have used it quite often.
14) I wonder whether Gandalf stresses this to make sure that everybody
understood that what Saruman said about his motives was untrue.
15) Why is there reason for Treebeard to dislike Gimli, just because
he is a dwarf? I know that dwarfs are not exactly portrayed as
tree-hugging wild life enthusiasts, but more like miners, who would
not really have anything to do with the forests. So how come
Treebeard has such a bad impression of dwarfs?
16) I had to leave all my Tolkien books except LOTR back home in
Denmark, so I cannot check whether we learn anything about black
Huorns anywhere else. UT perhaps?
17) How could PJ leave out most of this great chapter? There is so
much tension in this chapter, but perhaps not enough action for PJ?
Could have been done in very few minutes though - minutes, where you
could have had a stand-off between the two wizards that would have
been so much cooler than the stupid wrestling scene in FOTR.
18) I know that Tolkien disapproved of all interpretations of his
work as an analogy of modern issues, but I can't help thinking about
whether Saruman's demagogical rhetorical style was inspired by some
politician of Tolkien's time. Saruman's style is too subtle to be
inspired by Goebbels, Hitler or Mussolini, but do you have any other
suggestions? (Slightly OT I know, but as a student of political
science and international relations I can't help thinking of these
things)
"The treacherous are ever distrustful."
"So would the trapped wolf speak to the hounds, if he could."

[Christopher Kreuzer]

<snip>

Saruman turns this offer into a powerful attack on Gandalf,
suggesting that all Gandalf wants is more power for himself and that
Gandalf will not be satisfied until he owns the crowns of seven kings
(10) and the rods of the Five Wizards.

<snip>

10) Why seven? Is it just a random number or does it refer to
anything? I thought about the 7 rings for the dwarf-lords, but why
would Saruman refer to that?

The number seven is an oft-repeating number in Middle-earth. Several
examples are the seven stars on the banner of Aragorn, the seven stars
on the Doors of Durin and the seven palantiri.

http://www.google.com/groups?&selm=QVPpc.1539%24nb3.17404997%40news-text.cableinet.net

That is a link to a thread I started on 'Numbers in Tolkien'. The number
seven seems to be the one most frequently used by Tolkien.

It is especially noticeable that many of the uses of the number seven
are of semi-divine origin: originating from the fact that there are
seven Kings and Queens of the Valar. Thus the seven days of the week may
have originated from the cycle of light of the two trees. The seven
stars of the Sickle of the Valar may represent the Seven Kings of the
Valar, and hence the seven stars on Durin's Door. Many of the other
'sevens' may have originated from the original Valarian seven.

The upshot of all this is my (rather speculative) theory that Saruman's
"the crowns of seven kings" might be referring to the Seven Kings of the
Valar. A poetic way of saying that Gandalf (or rather Saruman) wants to
rule all of Arda.

<snip>

Christopher

[aelfwina]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Crossposted to RABT.

Let me just start by saying, that due to a 6-month stay in Dublin,

(Snip of very good summary!)

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

1) How does Merry now about the dangers of the loose slabs? Sounds
like
e - or Pippin - might have been close to having an accident...

Ooh, I'll have to take a look at that. It's an incident I seem to have
overlooked in all my readings.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

2) Gimli argues that he and Legolas should go with Gandalf, because
they are the only ones of their kin, but so are Merry and Pippin. Why
do they not want to go? One would think that at least Merry would
want to go on behalf of all hobbits? Are they just too afraid of
Saruman? Why does not Gandalf offer them to go? Does he fear the
influence of Saruman's voice is stronger on the hobbits - perhaps
because they are simpler folk? But even if that is the case, they
must still be able to hear him from the bottom step...

Merry and Pippin probably still have a healthy fear of the wizard. And
Gandalf, suspecting *some* kind of link with Barad-dur is probably not
averse to the idea of keeping hobbits out of the limelight. (Not knowing
he'd so conveniantly have a palatir chucked at him.) Yet as you observe,
they still can see and hear what's going on. Their curiousity would not
have let them skip this altogether.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

3) I always found this paragraph somewhat strange. It sounds like
Wormtongue is answering the doorbell in some suburban house, where he
is just trying to avoid annoying sales-men. Surely, he must have some
idea who is standing in front of him.

I don't much imagine he's very at ease in this situation. 8-D I love your
description, LOL!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

4) How does Gimli see through the rhetoric? He does not strike me as
being particularly bright or anything? And why are we not told what
Legolas and Aragorn felt about the voice? Not to mention Merry and
Pippin.
I wonder whether the voice has different effects on different races,
just like the Ring apparently has less of an effect on Hobbits than
on Humans.

It's possible. We know that Dwarves are not terribly susceptible to
coercion, anyway. But also, it is later mentioned that Saruman made a
mistake in dealing with his audience individually. It seems that he was
concentrating on them one at a time, which meant that the ones he *was* not
speaking to could slip through the cracks, so to speak.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

5) Why did Saruman pretend that he only knew the names of Gandalf and
Théoden? It has already been made clear to our heroes, that
Wormtongue - who knew about all the members of the company - is in
the tower and would of course have told Saruman of his encounter with
the travellers in the hall of Théoden .

Saruman's being devious; he's using an old ploy of putting people down by
pretending not to know their names. At least that's what I've always
thought. It's not a tactic you even need to be a wizard to pull off, either.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

6) How come Théoden is able to resist Saruman's voice? One would
think that he was prone to being convinced, since Wormtongue was able
to manipulate him so effectively and Saruman is a lot more powerful
than Wormtongue.

Once bitten, twice shy, I'd say is part of it. But though Saruman is more
powerful, Wormtongue had an advantage--at some point, Theoden had trusted
him as a friend, and he'd had *years* to worm through his king's defenses,
whisper in his ears, wear him down, a little bit at a time. Saruman has
only a few moments of time, and is dealing with someone whose trust has been
shattered. Harder nut to crack.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

7) A gibbet? That I the first time we hear of such things in LotR
IIRC. Seems like someone must have been executing people that way -
and apparently not just the bad guys. Do we hear of civilized people
using executions anywhere else in the books?

Not really, but if JRRT brought it up, it must not have been unheard of. I
wouldn't bet that it had not been used in Denethor's Gondor.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead. And if he did
not, then he does not really show any signs of wondering why
Gandalf's appearance has changed.

Palantir?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

9) How do we know what Théoden felt? Should he have told Merry
"Hey, for a moment there, I thought we were screwed!"

Well, he might have said something somewhat similar later, if not those
exact words. I have to admit though that it seems unlikely. Still we do
have the POV.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

10) Why seven? Is it just a random number or does it refer to
anything? I thought about the 7 rings for the dwarf-lords, but why
would Saruman refer to that?

Tolkien often uses 7. It's symbolic.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

11) This could turn out as a discussion of the movie-ism... The power
of the staff is evidently much different in the movies than in the
book. Apparently, you cannot just replace the staff with a new one in
the book. So what is the power of the staffs? It seems like it is not
only a matter of prestige, but that they hold actual powers, which is
why Gandalf should desire to own all five. They must have different
powers then? Or what do you think?

I don't really think that there were any "powers" inherent in the staffs, as
in power that could be wielded with no wizard behind it; it's possible that
they were useful to focus different kinds of power that each wizard
inherently had. (Much like each of the Three.) I think the staffs are again,
symbolic of the "office" of wizard. Rather like a badge is symbolic of a
law enforcement officer. To have all five would be to say that none of the
other wizards held their "office" any more.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Oh. and we could also start a lengthy discussion about the three other
Wizards.

If there were much of anything to discuss except what little we know of
Radagast. Be a great place for some wild speculation!

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

12) Where does Gandalf get authority to do this? You would think that
things like these cannot be so easily decided by just one member of
the order.

Gandalf's new authority came directly from Eru. I always assumed that he
was conveying the will of the Almighty who had sent him back. The other
members of the order had abdicated by their actions or inactions.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

13) Why didn't Wormtongue, who must have been in Orthanc for a while,
know what the item was? It cannot have been hidden from him or
anything, since he could get to it so easily and one would think,
that Saruman must have used it quite often.

Probably not in front of Grima. Would he want his toady to see him toadying
for Sauron?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

14) I wonder whether Gandalf stresses this to make sure that everybody
understood that what Saruman said about his motives was untrue.

I think Gandalf was just stating a fact.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

15) Why is there reason for Treebeard to dislike Gimli, just because
he is a dwarf? I know that dwarfs are not exactly portrayed as
tree-hugging wild life enthusiasts, but more like miners, who would
not really have anything to do with the forests. So how come
Treebeard has such a bad impression of dwarfs?

Just the presence of an axe after the devestation the forest had endured
must have been enraging to Treebeard. It's possible that there might have
been some "history" of Dwarves felling trees in his forest, as well.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

16) I had to leave all my Tolkien books except LOTR back home in
Denmark, so I cannot check whether we learn anything about black
Huorns anywhere else. UT perhaps?
17) How could PJ leave out most of this great chapter? There is so
much tension in this chapter, but perhaps not enough action for PJ?
Could have been done in very few minutes though - minutes, where you
could have had a stand-off between the two wizards that would have
been so much cooler than the stupid wrestling scene in FOTR.

I too missed this scene. But it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say where he
went wrong. I'm sure if I had done it, I'd probably have gotten that right,
and screwed up something else important. Ah, well, *sigh*...

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

18) I know that Tolkien disapproved of all interpretations of his
work as an analogy of modern issues, but I can't help thinking about
whether Saruman's demagogical rhetorical style was inspired by some
politician of Tolkien's time. Saruman's style is too subtle to be
inspired by Goebbels, Hitler or Mussolini, but do you have any other
suggestions? (Slightly OT I know, but as a student of political
science and international relations I can't help thinking of these
things)

It's possible that he had several in mind. We know he was not fond of
politics and politicians.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

"The treacherous are ever distrustful."
"So would the trapped wolf speak to the hounds, if he could."

Excellent quotes!
Barbara

[Larry Swain]

Post by aelfwina

5) Why did Saruman pretend that he only knew the names of Gandalf and
Théoden? It has already been made clear to our heroes, that
Wormtongue - who knew about all the members of the company - is in
the tower and would of course have told Saruman of his encounter with
the travellers in the hall of Théoden .

Saruman's being devious; he's using an old ploy of putting people down by
pretending not to know their names. At least that's what I've always
thought. It's not a tactic you even need to be a wizard to pull off, either.

I think its much simpler than that. If he can convince Gandalf
and Theoden to back himself, then so will all the free peoples,
except Gondor. Aragorn will, at least in Saruman's thought, the
hobbits he doesn't care about, the dwarves obviously trust
Gandalf as do the elves and ents. If he convinces Theoden, then
surely the Mark will follow. No one else present matters from
Saruman's view.

Post by aelfwina

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead. And if he did
not, then he does not really show any signs of wondering why
Gandalf's appearance has changed.

Palantir?

A) Wormtongue, you will recall, had seen Gandalf at Theoden's
hall.
B) Gandalf had ridden to at least the Fords of Isen gathering
Erkenwald and his men and the huorns. He didn't go unnoticed.

Logic dictates that Gandalf's presence should be expected.

[Huan the hound]

aelfwina posted on 9/7/04 10:53 PM:
[snip]

Post by aelfwina

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead. And if he did
not, then he does not really show any signs of wondering why
Gandalf's appearance has changed.

Palantir?

Nah, I think he would have just had an earful about Gandalf
from Wormtongue.

Hope this isn't a dumb question, but did Saruman know
Gandalf was dead?

Huan, the hound of Valinor

[Shanahan]

<snip>

Post by aelfwina

10) Why seven? Is it just a random number or does it refer to
anything? I thought about the 7 rings for the dwarf-lords, but
why would Saruman refer to that?

Tolkien often uses 7. It's symbolic.

What would you say it is symbolic *of*?

<snip>

Post by aelfwina

18) I know that Tolkien disapproved of all interpretations of
his work as an analogy of modern issues, but I can't help
thinking about whether Saruman's demagogical rhetorical style
was inspired by some politician of Tolkien's time. Saruman's
style is too subtle to be inspired by Goebbels, Hitler or
Mussolini, but do you have any other suggestions? (Slightly OT
I know, but as a student of political science and
international relations I can't help thinking of these things)

It's possible that he had several in mind. We know he was not
fond of politics and politicians.

How about Stalin and Churchill? They seem to fit the bill.

Ciaran S.
--
Could you vague that up a little for me?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Shanahan

Post by aelfwina
Tolkien often uses 7. It's symbolic.

What would you say it is symbolic *of*?

In some contexts: the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves.
In other contexts: the Seven Lords and Queens of the Valar.

It could even be argued that the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves originated
from the Valarian symbolism, because Aule created them.

Christopher

[Troels Forchhammer]

<snip>

2) Gimli argues that he and Legolas should go with Gandalf, because
they are the only ones of their kin, but so are Merry and Pippin.
Why do they not want to go?

[...]

But Hobbits are Men, too. Gandalf would know or guess that.

There's also another aspect to consider in this: the role of hobbits
in general in the strategic situation . . .

Merry and Pippin would have been worthy representatives of the Hobbits:
sons of the Thain and the Master of Buckland, and future Thain and
Master themselves.

As it is I suspect that the Hobbits were not the targets of Gandalf's
omission, but Saruman. Later he tells Merry,
"He had his eyes on you. If it is any comfort to your pride,
I should say that, at the moment, you and Pippin are more in
his thoughts than all the rest of us. Who you are; how you
came there, and why; what you know; whether you were captured,
and if so, how you escaped when all the Orcs perished - it is
with those little riddles that the great mind of Saruman is
troubled."

Possibly this was what Gandalf intended -- leaving the Hobbits out of
the group of 'ambassadors', but keeping them in plain view for Saruman
to see and wonder about.

3) I always found this paragraph somewhat strange. It sounds like
Wormtongue is answering the doorbell in some suburban house, where
he is just trying to avoid annoying sales-men. Surely, he must have
some idea who is standing in front of him.

Exactly. I always read this as a feeble attempt at insulting Gandalf
and Theoden.

I saw it as a part of the formality that is used to open negotiations.
Saruman expects to negotiate and reacts accordingly, but Gandalf doesn't
want to negotiate.

Saruman also expects to enter the negotiations at least as an equal: he
may have been defeated militarily, but he was still, as he believed, the
head of the White Council, the chief of the Heren Istarion.

4) How does Gimli see through the rhetoric? He does not strike me as
being particularly bright or anything?

He's a dwarf and thus less easily dominated - by magic or otherwise -
than anyone else present, except maybe Gandalf.

Indeed. As Raven notes they were made so by Aulë "because the power of
Melkor was yet over the Earth". This is, IMO, also the reason why the
Dwarven Ring-bearers proved "tough and heard to tame".

<snip>

6) How come Théoden is able to resist Saruman's voice? One would
think that he was prone to being convinced, since Wormtongue was
able to manipulate him so effectively and Saruman is a lot more
powerful than Wormtongue.

By the time Theoden shows active resistance, the spell of the Voice
has already been broken twice, by Gimli and Eomer, and Saruman has
fallen into the trap set by Gandalf of trying to play different roles
to different people, while they are all present.
Gandalfs presence may have had some influence too, but we are not told
that Gandalf does anything actively, so I don't think so.

And the effects of Gandalf's 'healing' may have had further consequences,
rekindling Théoden's heart.

<snip>

9) How do we know what Théoden felt? Should he have told Merry
perhaps? Seems a bit unlikely though, that he should be telling
him: "Hey, for a moment there, I thought we were screwed!"

He might have talked to Gandalf while they rode away.

Either Gandalf (on the way to the Fords where Merry could listen in)
or to Merry or Éomer (story-internally that is).

We don't hear whether Gandalf and Théoden speaks while they ride to
the Fords, and though we know that Théoden and Merry speaks while
they ride to Dunharrow, it is said that Merry told about the Shire
and it's people, and "listening in turn to tales of the Mark and its
mighty men of old."

Story-externally it is there to emphasize the power Saruman exerts in
this last effort -- story-internally there's a few possibilities as to
how Merry (I'm sure it came through him) could have known.

12) Where does Gandalf get authority to do this? You would think
that things like these cannot be so easily decided by just one
member of theorder.

Eru.

Doubtlessly.

" That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off
to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you
like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an
enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was
accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name.
I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality
and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much
greater. When he speaks he commands attention; the old Gandalf
could not have dealt so with Théoden, nor with Saruman."
(Letters #156, 1954)

13) Why didn't Wormtongue, who must have been in Orthanc for a
while, know what the item was? It cannot have been hidden from
him or anything, since he could get to it so easily and one
would think, that Saruman must have used it quite often.

Now that's a good (and new) question.

The previous chapter:

" They all fell silent for a while. Gimli re-filled his pipe.
'There is one thing I wonder about,' he said as he lit it with
his flint and tinder: 'Wormtongue. You told Théoden he was
with Saruman. How did he get there?'
'Oh yes, I forgot about him,' said Pippin. 'He did not get
here till this morning. We had just lit the fire and had some
breakfast when Treebeard appeared again. We heard him hooming
and calling our names outside.'"

So Wormtongue had been in Orthanc for only a few hours (let's say half a
day), much of which he probably spent explaining to Saruman.

Doubtlessly he had previously been in Isengard in secret (IIRC something
along those lines is suggested somewhere), but Saruman would probably
have concealed the Palantír at those times.

The only reason I can think of, is that Saruman had been poring over
it when Gandalf made his call, and didn't think of putting it away.
With this explanation, this may be the first time Wormtounge saw the
palantir.

That would be my guess as well.

15) Why is there reason for Treebeard to dislike Gimli, just because
he is a dwarf?

<snip>

"Nonetheless they will have need of wood." -- Aule speaking of the
dwarves in the Silmarillion. (Quoted from memory)

Following Yavanna's comment referring to the Ents: "'Eru is bountiful,'
she said. 'Now let thy children beware! For there shall walk a power in
the forests whose wrath they will arouse at their peril.'"

So the enmity between Dwarves and Ents were immanent in the Ents from
before their creation. Actually I think that a lot of the relation of the
Dwarves to the world they inhabit, and the peoples they share it with, is
explained in "Of Aulë and Yavanna".

<snip>

[Troels Forchhammer]

<snip>

11) This could turn out as a discussion of the movie-ism... The
power of the staff is evidently much different in the movies than in
the book. Apparently, you cannot just replace the staff with a new
one in the book. So what is the power of the staffs? It seems like
it is not only a matter of prestige, but that they hold actual
powers, which is why Gandalf should desire to own all five. They
must have different powers then?
Or what do you think?

We cannot from this passage infer anything of the significance of
the staffs of the wizards, except that they do have some significance
or other beyond that of walking props. But at the least they may
apparently be likened to policemen's badges, or the sceptres of
kings. A sceptre may in itself be only a nice piece of jewellery in
the shape of a small rod, but symbolically, if you hold it you hold
the kingship. Saruman accuses Gandalf of desiring mastery over all
his fellow wizards.

I'd agree with that.

The discussion of the significance of the staves is old, and I don't
think that there's any conclusive evidence to be found. That the
staves are at least symbolic is clear, and they can also be used in
magic, but whether there is any actual power in the staves themselves
is unclear.

Personally my greatest objection to the staffs holding actual power is
the nature of the Istari. These are Maiar, of the same order as Sauron,
though diminished in power. Why should they use (and be allowed to use)
externalised power? I think it more likely that the staves do not hold
power themselves, but that they can be used as conduits for power
(possibly focusing the power) and that they serve as symbols for the
Order. Thus it is not the breaking of Saruman's staff in itself that
bereaves him of his power -- it is merely a symbolic action signifying
the 'degradation' of Saruman: casting him out of the Order of the
Wizards, but the actual removal of his powers (other than his voice) is
done at another level (though I can't support this with evidence from
the books, I suspect that the power to do this was beyond even the
enhanced 'Gandalf the White' and that he was given only the authority
to judge Saruman, calling indirectly on Eru to execute the punishment
when Gandalf broke the staff -- that the breaking of the staff was the
equivalent of the judge passing sentence on the 'sinner'; the judge
doesn't carry out the sentence himself).

<snip>

[AC]

On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:09:52 GMT,

2) Gimli argues that he and Legolas should go with Gandalf, because
they are the only ones of their kin, but so are Merry and Pippin. Why
do they not want to go? One would think that at least Merry would
want to go on behalf of all hobbits? Are they just too afraid of
Saruman? Why does not Gandalf offer them to go? Does he fear the
influence of Saruman's voice is stronger on the hobbits - perhaps
because they are simpler folk? But even if that is the case, they
must still be able to hear him from the bottom step...

Considering what the Hobbits have been through, I can hardly blame them.

4) How does Gimli see through the rhetoric? He does not strike me as
being particularly bright or anything? And why are we not told what
Legolas and Aragorn felt about the voice? Not to mention Merry and
Pippin.

Dwarves are a stubborn, unbendable lot. I don't think it has as much to do
with brains as with will. This is an underlying theme in LotR. We see that
strength of will also helps Sam, who isn't always the brightest pickle in
the jar.

I wonder whether the voice has different effects on different races,
just like the Ring apparently has less of an effect on Hobbits than
on Humans.

That's my hunch.

6) How come Théoden is able to resist Saruman's voice? One would
think that he was prone to being convinced, since Wormtongue was able
to manipulate him so effectively and Saruman is a lot more powerful
than Wormtongue.

Clearly whatever Gandalf had done to bring Theoden out of his dotage was a
permanent effect. "Once fooled, twice shy" may also apply. Theoden's
rejection of Saruman's offer is my favorite part of this whole chapter, and
one of my favorite scenes in TTT (the book, never seen the movie).

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead. And if he did
not, then he does not really show any signs of wondering why
Gandalf's appearance has changed.

Would Saruman knew what GAndalf had gone through? I see no way in which he
could. Saruman, like Sauron, judged everyone else by his own ambitions. He
was secretly jealous of Gandalf, knew that Galadriel had pushed for Gandalf
to head the White Council, and likely thought that Gandalf had finally given
in to temptation and was styling himself a Power now.

12) Where does Gandalf get authority to do this? You would think that
things like these cannot be so easily decided by just one member of
the order.

Gandalf's enhancement wasn't, in my opinion, just an increase in power or
permission to show that power, but of authority. He was now the prime mover
in the final struggle against Sauron. Clearly, as the only one of the
Istari in the Northwest of Middle Earth that even seemed to give a damn
about Saruman's treachery, and as a representative of the Valar and an
instrument of Eru, I don't think you could give him much more authority.

13) Why didn't Wormtongue, who must have been in Orthanc for a while,
know what the item was? It cannot have been hidden from him or
anything, since he could get to it so easily and one would think,
that Saruman must have used it quite often.

It's quite likely that Saruman had all sorts of interesting things, and I
doubt he used the Palantir in front of poor ol' Grima.

15) Why is there reason for Treebeard to dislike Gimli, just because
he is a dwarf? I know that dwarfs are not exactly portrayed as
tree-hugging wild life enthusiasts, but more like miners, who would
not really have anything to do with the forests. So how come
Treebeard has such a bad impression of dwarfs?

Axes, probably.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by AC
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:09:52 GMT,

Actually, Christian Hannibal wrote the tri-indented bits. I know that
the indenting shows that I didn't write it, but there was really no
reason to snip the correct attribution.

<snip>

Post by AC
Saruman, like Sauron, judged everyone else by his
own ambitions. He was secretly jealous of Gandalf, knew that
Galadriel had pushed for Gandalf to head the White Council, and
likely thought that Gandalf had finally given in to temptation and
was styling himself a Power now.

<snip>

That's an interesting point. I always thought that Saruman was being
paranoid when he accused Gandalf of wanting the staffs of the five
wizards, but maybe he really believed that Gandalf had become like him.

Christopher

[AC]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:43:11 GMT,

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by AC
On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 22:09:52 GMT,

Actually, Christian Hannibal wrote the tri-indented bits. I know that
the indenting shows that I didn't write it, but there was really no
reason to snip the correct attribution.

Apologies.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>

Post by AC
Saruman, like Sauron, judged everyone else by his
own ambitions. He was secretly jealous of Gandalf, knew that
Galadriel had pushed for Gandalf to head the White Council, and
likely thought that Gandalf had finally given in to temptation and
was styling himself a Power now.

<snip>
That's an interesting point. I always thought that Saruman was being
paranoid when he accused Gandalf of wanting the staffs of the five
wizards, but maybe he really believed that Gandalf had become like him.

I'm quite certain that Saruman believed precisely that, and thought
Gandalf's donning the white robes and casting him from the Order was nothing
more than a coupe. I think it demonstrates just how far Saruman had fallen
from his original purpose.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by AC
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:43:11 GMT,

<snip>

Post by AC

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by AC
Saruman, like Sauron, judged everyone else by his own ambitions.
He was secretly jealous of Gandalf, knew that Galadriel had pushed
for Gandalf to head the White Council, and likely thought that
Gandalf had finally given in to temptation and was styling himself
a Power now.

Yes, Gandalf himself says something like this about Sauron in

"For he is very wise, and weighs all things to a nicety in the
scales of his malice. But the only measure that he knows is
desire, desire for power; and so he judges all hearts."
(The Council of Elrond, II,2)

Given Saruman's 'present' state, I think it very likely indeed that he
has fallen into using the same measure as his new master -- he has
forgotten what other measures he used to know.

Post by AC

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
That's an interesting point. I always thought that Saruman was being
paranoid when he accused Gandalf of wanting the staffs of the five
wizards, but maybe he really believed that Gandalf had become like him.

I'm quite certain that Saruman believed precisely that, and thought
Gandalf's donning the white robes and casting him from the Order was
nothing more than a coupe.

It sounds very likely to me as well.

Possibly the point here is that evil cannot understand good; measuring
all things "in the scales of [their] malice". Good, however, may know the
temptation of power ("Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like
the Dark Lord himself.")

Post by AC
I think it demonstrates just how far Saruman had fallen from his
original purpose.

Precisely.

Not only is he serving Sauron, but he is setting himself up as a power in
competition with Sauron, while at the same time becoming like Sauron.

'How the mighty are fallen . . . '

[Igenlode Wordsmith]

On 9 Sep 2004 Christopher Kreuzer wrote:

[snip]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I always thought that Saruman was being
paranoid when he accused Gandalf of wanting the staffs of the five
wizards, but maybe he really believed that Gandalf had become like him.

When he suggests that Gandalf might want to purchase "a pair of boots
many sizes larger than those that you wear now" - am I right in thinking
that this is simply a high-flown way of accusing his former subordinate
of having become 'too big for his boots'? :-)

(And what *was* the service that Saruman might have given, if he had
been persuaded to "have turned away from folly and evil"? What was
Gandalf hoping for from this interview?)

[David Besack]

Post by Igenlode Wordsmith
(And what *was* the service that Saruman might have given, if he had
been persuaded to "have turned away from folly and evil"? What was
Gandalf hoping for from this interview?)

Gandalf had known, or guessed, his alliance with Mordor, and Saruman
didn't know this. Without specifically accusing him of it, Gandalf
gives him the chance to side against Sauron.

[AC]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:19:38 +0100,

Post by Huan the hound
[snip]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I always thought that Saruman was being
paranoid when he accused Gandalf of wanting the staffs of the five
wizards, but maybe he really believed that Gandalf had become like him.

When he suggests that Gandalf might want to purchase "a pair of boots
many sizes larger than those that you wear now" - am I right in thinking
that this is simply a high-flown way of accusing his former subordinate
of having become 'too big for his boots'? :-)

I think that whole final bit of "uppitiness" by Saruman is just that, an
accusation that Gandalf had succeeded where he had failed.

Post by Huan the hound
(And what *was* the service that Saruman might have given, if he had
been persuaded to "have turned away from folly and evil"? What was
Gandalf hoping for from this interview?)

Well, Saruman probably knew slightly more about Sauron's plans than anyone
else outside Mordor, not to mention his wisdom in the Ringlore.

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Crossposted to RABT.

Thanks, Christopher.
<snip>

CotW LotR, Bk.3, Ch. 10 'The Voice of Saruman'

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Merry - in nice hobbit fashion - tells Gandalf, that he feels less
ill-disposed towards Saruman now that he (Merry) has had the chance
to eat, drink and smoke from Saruman's storeroom. (1) Gandalf says
that his opinion of Saruman has not changed and that he must have a
last meeting with him.

" 'We have,' said Merry. 'But our discussions began and
ended in smoke. Still we feel less ill-disposed towards
Saruman than we did.'
'Do you indeed?' said Gandalf. 'Well, I do not. I have
now a last task to do before I go: I must pay Saruman a
farewell visit. Dangerous, and probably useless; but it
must be done. Those of you who wish may come with me - but
beware! And do not jest! This is not the time for it.'"

I've been wondering about this passage. What exactly does Gandalf mean?

His answer should mean that he doesn't feel "less ill-disposed towards
Saruman", but just how ill-disposed did he feel earlier towards Saruman?
What does he feel towards Saruman?

Saruman has betrayed his mission. He has become corrupted himself, has
tried to corrupt Gandalf and when it failed he imprisoned Gandalf. He has
built an army of Orcs and Men -- possibly even cross-breeding them ("That
would be a black evil," said Treebeard) and as the final straws he tried
to gain the One Ring for himself and launched a war of aggression against
Rohan. Saruman has certainly fallen from "his high errand," "becoming
proud and impatient and enamoured of power sought to have his own will by
force, and to oust Sauron; but he was ensnared by that dark spirit,
mightier than he." (UT 4,II 'The Istari'.)

The point is that Gandalf certainly had a lot of reason to resent
Saruman, but I think it would be more in keeping with his status (and
mission) if he rather pitied Saruman -- as I think is also implied by his
treatment of Saruman; In particular trying to persuade him to help, but
in particular by his speech to Saruman, "You have become a fool, Saruman,
and yet pitiable."


So what does he mean when he says that he doesn't feel less ill-disposed
towards Saruman? That he still doesn't want to let Saruman remain
powerful and able to work for himself or Sauron? I don't think Merry
would want that either -- all I read into his comment is that his hatred
for Saruman has lessened and he no longer wants to actively hurt Saruman,
but that should, IMO, be something that Gandalf would approve of, so why
this comment?

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Saruman then makes an interesting point: that he cannot be called a
murderer, just because some men died in a battle, that Saruman claims
he did not desire. If that were the case, then all great kings of
Rohan would be murderers too.

What do you think of his arguments?

I don't doubt that Tolkien disagrees, but is it possible to set up simple
rules -- within Middle-earth (I don't intend to launch another political
thread, my purpose here is to explore the morals of Tolkien's world) --
to distinguish between murder and justified killing when men die in war?

It would be easy to say that one is not a murderer if one's cause is
'just' and is a murderer if the cause is 'unjust' (as is Saruman's,
obviously) or if it is against Eru's will, but is there a (reasonably
simple) way to tell what is just, or what is Eru's will?

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead.

I am not aware of any evidence telling if Saruman knew about Gandalf's
fall. If his Orcs had returned, then he may have learned from them what
they had heard from the Moria Orcs, but Éomer and his éored prevented
that.

So the question for me is whether Saruman had any idea that Gandalf had
fallen in Moria, and if so, how?

He probably (I almost wrote 'obviously) has some intelligence on the
Fellowship as he was able to send his Orcs to Path Galen, and he may have
known that Gandalf didn't travel with them anymore, but could he not have
thought that Gandalf might have stayed in Lórien?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

And if he did not, then he does not really show any signs of wondering
why Gandalf's appearance has changed.

Saruman probably watched the events in Helm's Deep 'on-line' in the
Palantír, and even if he missed Gandalf's appearance there, he did have
half a day in Orthanc with Wormtongue, which he would have been foolish
(I know that Gandalf accuses him of being a fool, but it seems to have
been at another level) if he didn't spend at least some time questioning
Wormtongue what went wrong in Edoras -- and the explanation would
inevitably include a vivid description of Gandalf's healing of Théoden.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
CotW LotR, Bk.3, Ch. 10 'The Voice of Saruman'
<snip>

Merry - in nice hobbit fashion - tells Gandalf, that he feels less
ill-disposed towards Saruman now that he (Merry) has had the chance
to eat, drink and smoke from Saruman's storeroom. (1) Gandalf says
that his opinion of Saruman has not changed and that he must have a
last meeting with him.

" 'We have,' said Merry. 'But our discussions began and
ended in smoke. Still we feel less ill-disposed towards
Saruman than we did.'
'Do you indeed?' said Gandalf. 'Well, I do not. I have
now a last task to do before I go: I must pay Saruman a
farewell visit. Dangerous, and probably useless; but it
must be done. Those of you who wish may come with me - but
beware! And do not jest! This is not the time for it.'"
I've been wondering about this passage. What exactly does Gandalf mean?

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
So what does he mean when he says that he doesn't feel less
ill-disposed towards Saruman?

I agree with your reasoning, but you seem to set Gandalf up as this
perfect being. I think you can easily explain this comment as just
Gandalf feeling very, very angry. He knows, more than Merry does, what
is at stake here. Later, of course, we see Gandalf's pity and (much
later) Frodo's pity as well. Maybe this comment and the actually
breaking of Saruman's staff scene is the closest Tolkien can come to
righteous anger?

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's
presence, though he must have thought that he was dead.

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
So the question for me is whether Saruman had any idea that Gandalf
had fallen in Moria, and if so, how?

<snip>

Maybe the palantir? Though I actually don't think that Saruman did know.
It seems that Sauron did not know, so I don't think we should expect
Saruman to know either. Just a gut feeling.

Christopher

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
CotW LotR, Bk.3, Ch. 10 'The Voice of Saruman'

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
So what does he mean when he says that he doesn't feel less
ill-disposed towards Saruman?

I agree with your reasoning, but you seem to set Gandalf up as this
perfect being.

Well, both yes and no, I think. I do try to take outset in what we know
otherwise about his opinions and motives (and the advice he gives), as
well as both his enhanced status and his other statements about Saruman.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
I think you can easily explain this comment as just Gandalf feeling
very, very angry.

I don't doubt that he, at some level, is angry (or perhaps disappointed)
about Saruman's treachery, and that he may have remonstrated Merry for
his Hobbit susceptibility to good food and a pipe of weed ;-) but on the
other hand I find it difficult to reconcile this statement with the focus
on pity we see elsewhere.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
He knows, more than Merry does, what is at stake here.

And knows better than any of the others how deep Saruman has fallen and
just what (and who) he has betrayed.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Later, of course, we see Gandalf's pity and (much later) Frodo's pity
as well.

It is there already in 'The Shadow of the Past' -- pity staying Bilbo's
hand (and it's not so much later until we see Frodo's pity, but that's
part of my task for next Monday ;-)

" 'Gollum!' cried Frodo. 'Gollum? Do you mean that this is the
very Gollum-creature that Bilbo met? How loathsome!'
'I think it is a sad story,' said the wizard, 'and it might
have happened to others, even to some hobbits that I have
known.'"

Gandalf thought that Gollum's was a "sad story" -- would he have been so
much more angry with Saruman?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Maybe this comment and the actually breaking of Saruman's staff scene

is

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
the closest Tolkien can come to righteous anger?

It is possible, I guess, that it is just righteous anger, though I think
that Gandalf's treatment of Saruman certainly wasn't without mercy.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Troels Forchhammer
So the question for me is whether Saruman had any idea that Gandalf
had fallen in Moria, and if so, how?

Maybe the palantir? Though I actually don't think that Saruman did
know. It seems that Sauron did not know, so I don't think we should
expect Saruman to know either. Just a gut feeling.

I agree with that.

[James Stein]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Gandalf thought that Gollum's was a "sad story" -- would he have been so
much more angry with Saruman?

Gollum was seduced by the Ring itself; Saruman was seduced by the desire for
power. I suspect that Gollum's story is sad because it's like being struck
by lightening; the Ring is a nigh-unstoppable force of nature, Gollum didn't
have a chance in hell of really resisting it. Saruman's flaws, however, were
all too human.

[Rhino 7]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:38:00 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It would be easy to say that one is not a murderer if one's cause is
'just' and is a murderer if the cause is 'unjust' (as is Saruman's,
obviously) or if it is against Eru's will, but is there a (reasonably
simple) way to tell what is just, or what is Eru's will?

Shades of Shakespeare, Batman!!

(Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1)
So, if a son that is by his father sent about
merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the
imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be
imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a
servant, under his master's command transporting a
sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in
many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the
business of the master the author of the servant's
damnation: but this is not so: the king is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his
soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of
his servant; for they purpose not their death, when
they purpose their services. Besides, there is no
king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to
the arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all
unspotted soldiers: some peradventure have on them
the guilt of premeditated and contrived murder;
some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals of
perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that
have before gored the gentle bosom of peace with
pillage and robbery. Now, if these men have
defeated the law and outrun native punishment,
though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to
fly from God: war is his beadle, war is vengeance;
so that here men are punished for before-breach of
the king's laws in now the king's quarrel: where
they feared the death, they have borne life away;
and where they would be safe, they perish: then if
they die unprovided, no more is the king guilty of
their damnation than he was before guilty of those
impieties for the which they are now visited. Every
subject's duty is the king's; but every subject's
soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in
the wars do as every sick man in his bed, wash every
mote out of his conscience: and dying so, death
is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was
blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained:
and in him that escapes, it were not sin to think
that, making God so free an offer, He let him
outlive that day to see His greatness and to teach
others how they should prepare.

Rhino7

[Shanahan]

Post by Rhino 7
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:38:00 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"

Post by Troels Forchhammer
It would be easy to say that one is not a murderer if one's
cause is 'just' and is a murderer if the cause is 'unjust' (as
is Saruman's, obviously) or if it is against Eru's will, but is
there a (reasonably simple) way to tell what is just, or what
is Eru's will?

Shades of Shakespeare, Batman!!
(Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1)

Yeah, but that whole quote is just Henry frantically rationalizing
his own guilt in leading his men into an (apparently) certain death
situation, which makes it a bit shaky to lean on as a moral
standard! <g>

Ciaran S.
--
"Thought you would have been here days ago,"
said the balding elf. "Any trouble along the way?"
"I could write a book," said Frito prophetically.
- bored of the rings

[Rhino 7]

Post by Shanahan

Post by Rhino 7
Shades of Shakespeare, Batman!!
(Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1)

Yeah, but that whole quote is just Henry frantically rationalizing
his own guilt in leading his men into an (apparently) certain death
situation, which makes it a bit shaky to lean on as a moral
standard! <g>
Ciaran S.

It's a stretch, but Shakespeare was a cynic, so it's about as solid as
you'll probably find in the plays. The discussion just reminded me of
that passage.

Rhino7

[AC]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I am not aware of any evidence telling if Saruman knew about Gandalf's
fall. If his Orcs had returned, then he may have learned from them what
they had heard from the Moria Orcs, but Éomer and his éored prevented
that.
So the question for me is whether Saruman had any idea that Gandalf had
fallen in Moria, and if so, how?
He probably (I almost wrote 'obviously) has some intelligence on the
Fellowship as he was able to send his Orcs to Path Galen, and he may have
known that Gandalf didn't travel with them anymore, but could he not have
thought that Gandalf might have stayed in Lórien?

I suppose it's possible that Saruman, watching the Nine Walkers, might
have seen the final battle between Gandalf and the Balrog, and Gandalf's
death. I have to say, however, that the way I see Saruman's reaction,
it seems more consistent with him thinking he's talking to Gandalf the
*Grey*. I don't think he had any idea of what Gandalf had gone through,
or that Gandalf was enhanced.

[Emma Pease]

Post by AC

Post by Troels Forchhammer
I am not aware of any evidence telling if Saruman knew about Gandalf's
fall. If his Orcs had returned, then he may have learned from them what
they had heard from the Moria Orcs, but Éomer and his éored prevented
that.
So the question for me is whether Saruman had any idea that Gandalf had
fallen in Moria, and if so, how?
He probably (I almost wrote 'obviously) has some intelligence on the
Fellowship as he was able to send his Orcs to Path Galen, and he may have
known that Gandalf didn't travel with them anymore, but could he not have
thought that Gandalf might have stayed in Lórien?

I suppose it's possible that Saruman, watching the Nine Walkers, might
have seen the final battle between Gandalf and the Balrog, and Gandalf's
death. I have to say, however, that the way I see Saruman's reaction,
it seems more consistent with him thinking he's talking to Gandalf the
*Grey*. I don't think he had any idea of what Gandalf had gone through,
or that Gandalf was enhanced.

Saruman also got news from the Moria orcs[1] and they probably
reported that Gandalf and the Balrog had fallen into the abyss; Sauron
may have learned from the same source. When Gandalf shows up again,
Saruman and Sauron probably assumed that he had survived somehow and
not that he had died and been sent back with extra authority.

Emma

[1] The Moria orcs and the Isengard orcs had been sent out together by
Saruman to Parth Galen and if Saruman hadn't extracted all the
information he could from them, I would be surprised.

[Michael Ikeda]

Emma Pease <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote in news:***@munin.Stanford.EDU:

(snipped)

Post by Emma Pease
Saruman also got news from the Moria orcs[1] and they probably
reported that Gandalf and the Balrog had fallen into the abyss;
Sauron may have learned from the same source. When Gandalf
shows up again, Saruman and Sauron probably assumed that he had
survived somehow and not that he had died and been sent back
with extra authority.
Emma
[1] The Moria orcs and the Isengard orcs had been sent out
together by Saruman to Parth Galen and if Saruman hadn't
extracted all the information he could from them, I would be
surprised.

It isn't entirely clear that the Moria orcs stopped off at Isengard
on their way to Parth Galen.

Ugluk does say that the White Hand "came out of Isengard, and led you
here" but they could have met up with the Moria orcs after the White
Hand left Isengard.

One of the Northern Orcs says just earlier "We have come all the way
from the mines to kill, and avenge our folk. I wish to kill, and
then go back north." Isengard would be a bit of a detour from Moria.

[Troels Forchhammer]

<snip>

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Emma Pease
[1] The Moria orcs and the Isengard orcs had been sent out
together by Saruman to Parth Galen and if Saruman hadn't
extracted all the information he could from them, I would be
surprised.

I don't think that the Moria Orcs stopped by at Isengard. They were
pursuing the fellowship, not being part of a force sent out by Saruman,
IMO.

<snip>

Post by Michael Ikeda
Ugluk does say that the White Hand "came out of Isengard, and led you
here" but they could have met up with the Moria orcs after the White
Hand left Isengard.

Exactly.

What Uglúk says is this:

" 'Aye, we must stick together,' growled Uglúk. 'I don't trust
you little swine. You've no guts outside your own sties. But
for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting Uruk-hai!
We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the
servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that
gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led
you here, and we shall lead you back by the way we choose. I
am Uglúk. I have spoken.'"

"/We/ are the fighting Uruk-hai!"
"/We/ are the servants of Saruman the Wise"
"/We/ came out of Isengard"
. . . "and [then] led you here."
(my emphasis and insertion of [then]

I don't think the "we" who came out of Isengard is any different from all
the other uses of the word in this paragraph -- i.e. that it includes
only the Orcs of the White Hand.

Post by Michael Ikeda
One of the Northern Orcs says just earlier "We have come all the way
from the mines to kill, and avenge our folk. I wish to kill, and
then go back north." Isengard would be a bit of a detour from Moria.

And the implication is, IMO, that the Northerners, the Moria Orcs, had
been following the fellowship down the Anduin, and met up with the
Isengard Orcs at Path Galen. The Northerners do /not/ wish to return to
Isengard; something which, IMO, implies that they didn't come from there
either.

Pippin's memory of the confrontation unfortunately doesn't help much:
first he and Merry had met some Orcs, and they had fought them until
Boromir came charging, made them fight and eventually flee. Only on their
way back did the Orcs attack again -- this time including the Isengarders
(at least I think the 'very large' Orcs were Isengarders).

The first group probably only included the Mordor Orcs ("but the Orcs did
not wish to fight, and had tried only to lay hold of them"), but the
second group was comprised of all the different kinds.

[John Jones]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
first he and Merry had met some Orcs, and they had fought them until
Boromir came charging, made them fight and eventually flee. Only on their
way back did the Orcs attack again -- this time including the Isengarders
(at least I think the 'very large' Orcs were Isengarders).
The first group probably only included the Mordor Orcs ("but the Orcs did
not wish to fight, and had tried only to lay hold of them"), but the
second group was comprised of all the different kinds.

But this point suggests that the first group *did* include the Isengard
Orcs. The Moria-orcs wanted to kill the Fellowship; it was Saruman's (and
presumably Sauron's) orcs who had been ordered to capture halflings.
Pippin didn't try to fight the orcs; only Merry did. Boromir drove them off,
but the orcs counter-attacked after a pause, killing Boromir and capturing M
& P. I'm not sure that these were two separate groups of Orcs.

[Emma Pease]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Emma Pease
[1] The Moria orcs and the Isengard orcs had been sent out
together by Saruman to Parth Galen and if Saruman hadn't
extracted all the information he could from them, I would be
surprised.

I don't think that the Moria Orcs stopped by at Isengard. They were
pursuing the fellowship, not being part of a force sent out by Saruman,
IMO.
<snip>

<snip>

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Michael Ikeda
One of the Northern Orcs says just earlier "We have come all the way
from the mines to kill, and avenge our folk. I wish to kill, and
then go back north." Isengard would be a bit of a detour from Moria.

And the implication is, IMO, that the Northerners, the Moria Orcs, had
been following the fellowship down the Anduin, and met up with the
Isengard Orcs at Path Galen. The Northerners do /not/ wish to return to
Isengard; something which, IMO, implies that they didn't come from there
either.
first he and Merry had met some Orcs, and they had fought them until
Boromir came charging, made them fight and eventually flee. Only on their
way back did the Orcs attack again -- this time including the Isengarders
(at least I think the 'very large' Orcs were Isengarders).
The first group probably only included the Mordor Orcs ("but the Orcs did
not wish to fight, and had tried only to lay hold of them"), but the
second group was comprised of all the different kinds.

I believe one of the Isengard orcs also makes a comment about what is
the use of sending out maggots (i.e., the Moria orcs) half trained.
That to me implies the Moria orcs came via or under the direction of
Isengard.

Note that the Moria orcs had no way (without aid either from Sauron or
Saruman) to know where the fellowship was.

Emma

[Troels Forchhammer]

in <***@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> enriched us with:
<snip>

Post by Emma Pease
I believe one of the Isengard orcs also makes a comment about what is
the use of sending out maggots (i.e., the Moria orcs) half trained.
That to me implies the Moria orcs came via or under the direction of
Isengard.

" 'You'll run with me behind you,' said Uglúk. 'Run! Or you'll
never see your beloved holes again. By the White Hand! What's
the use of sending out mountain-maggots on a trip, only half
trained. Run, curse you! Run while night lasts!'"

Actually it suggests the opposite to me ;-)

As I read it there is a "we'd never do it that way in Isengard" feel over
this comment. I see it as a complaint against whoever sent out the Moria
Orcs: someone who didn't do things the way Uglúk wanted them done -- i.e.
as the White Hand did them.

Post by Emma Pease
Note that the Moria orcs had no way (without aid either from Sauron or
Saruman) to know where the fellowship was.

They were the only ones who could have -- following the fellowship down
the River from they left Lórien.

[Emma Pease]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>

Post by Emma Pease
I believe one of the Isengard orcs also makes a comment about what is
the use of sending out maggots (i.e., the Moria orcs) half trained.
That to me implies the Moria orcs came via or under the direction of
Isengard.

" 'You'll run with me behind you,' said Uglúk. 'Run! Or you'll
never see your beloved holes again. By the White Hand! What's
the use of sending out mountain-maggots on a trip, only half
trained. Run, curse you! Run while night lasts!'"
Actually it suggests the opposite to me ;-)
As I read it there is a "we'd never do it that way in Isengard" feel over
this comment. I see it as a complaint against whoever sent out the Moria
Orcs: someone who didn't do things the way Uglúk wanted them done -- i.e.
as the White Hand did them.

But who sent them? and who half trained them? I think Ugluck is
grousing about his own middle management.

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Emma Pease
Note that the Moria orcs had no way (without aid either from Sauron or
Saruman) to know where the fellowship was.

They were the only ones who could have -- following the fellowship down
the River from they left Lorien.

And the elves would have let them anywhere near the farewell feast to
watch? Remember elven blades can show whether orcs are nearby and I'm
sure the Elven security forces checked.[1] Both Saruman and Sauron use
birds as spies. Both Saruman and Sauron have palantirs. Either could
find the fellowship if they were on the alert.

Emma

[1] Gollum could sneak near because he was (a) good at sneaking and
(b) wouldn't set off the sword alarm.

[Öjevind Lång]

"Emma Pease" <***@kanpai.stanford.edu> skrev i meddelandet news:***@munin.Stanford.EDU...

[snip]

Post by Emma Pease

Post by Troels Forchhammer
As I read it there is a "we'd never do it that way in Isengard" feel over
this comment. I see it as a complaint against whoever sent out the Moria
Orcs: someone who didn't do things the way Uglúk wanted them done -- i.e.
as the White Hand did them.

But who sent them? and who half trained them? I think Ugluck is
grousing about his own middle management.

I think they simply were sent by whatever surviving Orc boss there was in
Moria after the fighting with the Fellowship:

"'Not our orders!"' said one of the ealier voices. 'We have come all the way
from the Mines to kill, and to avenge our folk. I wish to kill, and then go
back north.'"

("The Uruk-hai")

I think this shows rather conclusively that the Moria orcs take orders from
neither Mordor nor Isengard; they have simply teamed up with other Orcs for
revenge on the Fellowship - they are all Orcs together. However, Uglúk and
Grishnákh won't accept that - one is the servant of Saruman and the other of
Sauron. Both try to persuade the Moia orcs to submit to *their* boss.

Öjevind

[Troels Forchhammer]

In message <news:nTV1d.5354$***@nntpserver.swip.net> "Öjevind
Lång" <***@swipnet.se> enriched us with:
<snip>

Post by Öjevind Lång
"'Not our orders!"' said one of the ealier voices. 'We have come
all the way from the Mines to kill, and to avenge our folk. I wish
to kill, and then go back north.'"
("The Uruk-hai")
I think this shows rather conclusively that the Moria orcs take
orders from neither Mordor nor Isengard;

Good point.

Post by Öjevind Lång
they have simply teamed up with other Orcs for revenge on the
Fellowship

While the other two groups had other orders (which conflicted with the
wishes of the Moria Orcs.)

Post by Öjevind Lång
they are all Orcs together.

For some reason this wording had me imagining the three bands of Orcs
running through Rohan singing, "The more we are together . . ." ;-)

Post by Öjevind Lång
However, Uglúk and Grishnákh won't accept that - one is the
servant of Saruman and the other of Sauron. Both try to persuade
the Moia orcs to submit to *their* boss.

Excellent.

[Öjevind Lång]

[snip]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Öjevind Lång
they are all Orcs together.

For some reason this wording had me imagining the three bands of Orcs
running through Rohan singing, "The more we are together . . ." ;-)

From "The Sound of Orkic"?

Öjevind

[Troels Forchhammer]

in <***@uni-berlin.de>,
AC <***@hotmail.com> enriched us with:
<snip>

I have to say, however, that the way I see Saruman's reaction, it seems
more consistent with him thinking he's talking to Gandalf the *Grey*.
I don't think he had any idea of what Gandalf had gone through, or that
Gandalf was enhanced.

That's a good point, I think.

Had he known about Gandalf's death and resurrection, he would clearly
have known that Gandalf could have been ressurected by Eru alone, and
this knowledge would, I agree, have changed his behaviour towards
Gandalf.

[Michael Ikeda]

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>

Post by AC
I have to say, however, that the way I see Saruman's reaction,
it seems more consistent with him thinking he's talking to
Gandalf the *Grey*. I don't think he had any idea of what
Gandalf had gone through, or that Gandalf was enhanced.

That's a good point, I think.
Had he known about Gandalf's death and resurrection, he would
clearly have known that Gandalf could have been ressurected by
Eru alone, and this knowledge would, I agree, have changed his
behaviour towards Gandalf.

It isn't entirely clear whether Gandalf was "sent back" directly by
Eru or by the Valar. The distinction is probably irrelevant with
regard to Saruman's likely reaction.

[AC]

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>

Post by AC
I have to say, however, that the way I see Saruman's reaction,
it seems more consistent with him thinking he's talking to
Gandalf the *Grey*. I don't think he had any idea of what
Gandalf had gone through, or that Gandalf was enhanced.

That's a good point, I think.
Had he known about Gandalf's death and resurrection, he would
clearly have known that Gandalf could have been ressurected by
Eru alone, and this knowledge would, I agree, have changed his
behaviour towards Gandalf.

It isn't entirely clear whether Gandalf was "sent back" directly by
Eru or by the Valar. The distinction is probably irrelevant with
regard to Saruman's likely reaction.

[AC]

<snip>

Post by Michael Ikeda

Had he [Saruman] known about Gandalf's death and resurrection, he would
clearly have known that Gandalf could have been ressurected by
Eru alone, and this knowledge would, I agree, have changed his
behaviour towards Gandalf.

It isn't entirely clear whether Gandalf was "sent back" directly by
Eru or by the Valar. The distinction is probably irrelevant with
regard to Saruman's likely reaction.

"[Gandalf] was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or
govenors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged it, at the
moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back for a brief time, until
my task is done'. Sent back by whom, and whence? Not by the Gods'
whose business is only with this embodied world and its time; for he
'passed out of thought and time'. Naked is alas! unclear. It was meant
just literally, 'Unclothed like a child' (not disincarnate), and so
ready to receive the white robes of the highest. Galadriel's power is
not divine, and his healing in Lorien is meant to be no more than
physical healing and refreshment."
Letter #156

[Troels Forchhammer]

<snip>

[Saruman knowing about Gandalf's death and resurrection]

Post by Michael Ikeda

Post by Troels Forchhammer
Had he known about Gandalf's death and resurrection, he would
clearly have known that Gandalf could have been ressurected by
Eru alone, and this knowledge would, I agree, have changed his
behaviour towards Gandalf.

It isn't entirely clear whether Gandalf was "sent back" directly by
Eru or by the Valar.

It is made explicit in letter #156

"He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or
governors; but Authority had taken up this plan and enlarged
it, at the moment of its failure. 'Naked I was sent back -
for a brief time, until my task is done'. Sent back by whom,
and whence? Not by the 'gods' whose business is only with
this embodied world and its time; for he passed 'out of
thought and time'."

I don't think the Valar would have that power, and I think that Saruman
knew that they didn't.

Post by Michael Ikeda
The distinction is probably irrelevant with regard to Saruman's
likely reaction.

That's another matter and I agree. There might have been ways for the
Valar to rescue Gandalf 'on the brink of death' and that would probably
have triggered the same reaction in Saruman, different from the one he
does show.

[Shanahan]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
CotW LotR, Bk.3, Ch. 10 'The Voice of Saruman'

<snip>

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Saruman then makes an interesting point: that he cannot be
called a murderer, just because some men died in a battle,
that Saruman claims he did not desire. If that were the case,
then all great kings of Rohan would be murderers too.

What do you think of his arguments?
I don't doubt that Tolkien disagrees, but is it possible to set
up simple rules -- within Middle-earth (I don't intend to launch
another political thread, my purpose here is to explore the
morals of Tolkien's world) -- to distinguish between murder and
justified killing when men die in war?
It would be easy to say that one is not a murderer if one's
cause is 'just' and is a murderer if the cause is 'unjust' (as
is Saruman's, obviously) or if it is against Eru's will, but is
there a (reasonably simple) way to tell what is just, or what is
Eru's will?

I don't think that one is *not* a murderer if one's cause is just,
or
*is* a murderer if one's cause is unjust. Nor do I think Tolkien
thought that. The cause can be just, while an individual act of
killing in defense of that cause may be unjust, cruel, unnecessary,
or over-the-top: which would make it murder. Likewise, there can
be acts of justice, mercy, or nobility on the part of those who are
fighting for an unjust cause. I believe Saruman is oversimplifying
in order to confuse the moral issues, and convert his listeners.

In Tolkien's world, perhaps there is a simple way to tell what
cause is just, and what is not: the unjust cause is that of
domination, or of trying to control others' wills. But that simple
distinction does not extend to the discrete acts of individuals on
either side, as Saruman would make it seem. And to make it even
more complicated, the good or evil acts of individuals do not alter
the rightness or injustice of the cause they fight for.

Letter #183 has something to say about this:
Of course in "real life' causes are not clear cut - [...] That
being so, the right will remain an inalienable possession of the
right side and justify its cause throughout.
(I speak of causes, not of individuals. Of course to a judge whose
moral ideas have a religious or philosophical basis, or indeed to
anyone not blinded by partisan fanaticism, the rightness of the
cause will not justify the actions of its supporters, as
individuals, that are morally wicked. But though 'propaganda' may
seize on them as proofs that their cause was not in fact 'right',
that is not valid. The aggressors are themselves primarily to blame
for the evil deeds that proceed from their original violation of
justice and the passions that their own wickedness must naturally
(by their standards) have been expected to arouse. They at any rate
have no right to demand that their victims when assaulted should
not demand an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.)
Similarly, good actions by those on the wrong side will not justify
their cause. There may be deeds on the wrong side of heroic
courage, or some of a higher moral level: deeds of mercy and
forbearance. A judge may accord them honour and rejoice to see how
some men can rise above the hate and anger of a conflict; even as
he may deplore the evil deeds on the right side and be grieved to
see how hatred once provoked can drag them down. But this will not
alter his judgement as to which side was in the right, nor his
assignment of the primary blame for all the evil that followed to
the other side.

Ciaran S.
--
Karl Marx's Shopping List:
- Dessert for potluck at Friedrich's
- Party favors for after the Revolution
- Ham and milk
- At pharmacy - find opiate antidote
- Stuff for Everybody

[R. Dan Henry]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:38:00 GMT, "Troels Forchhammer"

Post by Troels Forchhammer
So what does he mean when he says that he doesn't feel less ill-disposed
towards Saruman? That he still doesn't want to let Saruman remain
powerful and able to work for himself or Sauron? I don't think Merry
would want that either -- all I read into his comment is that his hatred
for Saruman has lessened and he no longer wants to actively hurt Saruman,
but that should, IMO, be something that Gandalf would approve of, so why
this comment?

Anyone who does not stay on guard when faced by Saruman is likely to
become far too non-ill-disposed towards him, which I think is what
motivates Gandalf's comment. He isn't forgetting any of his grievances
and neither should anyone else who is going to speak to Saruman.

R. Dan Henry
***@inreach.com

[fred]

Post by R. Dan Henry
Anyone who does not stay on guard when faced by Saruman is likely to
become far too non-ill-disposed towards him, which I think is what
motivates Gandalf's comment. He isn't forgetting any of his grievances
and neither should anyone else who is going to speak to Saruman.

What do you think the "great service" Saruman could have rendered to the
cause would have been? He had just proved himself a lousy general
(losing a 10,000 orc army in the Helm's Deep assult). And I doubt
Gandalf and Co. would have revealed their plans for the ring to him. So
what could he have done to aid the cause, I wonder?

fred

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by fred

Post by R. Dan Henry
Anyone who does not stay on guard when faced by Saruman is likely
to become far too non-ill-disposed towards him, which I think is
what motivates Gandalf's comment. He isn't forgetting any of his
grievances and neither should anyone else who is going to speak
to Saruman.

Aye, there is that, of course.

I didn't quite see it in that light; keeping the grievances in mind as a
ward against Saruman's powers (and in particular against the power of his
voice).

Post by fred
What do you think the "great service" Saruman could have rendered to
the cause would have been? He had just proved himself a lousy general
(losing a 10,000 orc army in the Helm's Deep assult). And I doubt
Gandalf and Co. would have revealed their plans for the ring to him.
So what could he have done to aid the cause, I wonder?

His knowledge was great, and lending that to the cause of 'good' would,
by itself, have been a 'great service', I think.

Furthermore he would have retained his powers, which would, on the side
of good, have been second only to Gandalf's (the White): Saruman was
"higher in Valinórean stature than the [other Istari]" (UT 4,II 'The
Istari')

[R. Dan Henry]

Post by fred
What do you think the "great service" Saruman could have rendered to the
cause would have been?

He probably had some very useful knowledge. Sauron wouldn't have
trusted him with his secret thoughts, but Saruman would have known
more about the forces, activities, and plans of the Enemy than even
Gandalf. The palantir was probably not the only nifty item he had
stored in Orthanc, either. Finally, with his spine stiffened by
Gandalf's backing, he might have managed some disinformation in
communication to Sauron. If he really joined with enthusiasm, think
what the Voice of Saruman might have accomplished to help raise morale
and perhaps even reach Denethor through his pride.

R. Dan Henry
***@inreach.com

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

Post by fred

Post by R. Dan Henry
Anyone who does not stay on guard when faced by Saruman is likely to
become far too non-ill-disposed towards him, which I think is what
motivates Gandalf's comment. He isn't forgetting any of his grievances
and neither should anyone else who is going to speak to Saruman.

What do you think the "great service" Saruman could have rendered to the
cause would have been? He had just proved himself a lousy general
(losing a 10,000 orc army in the Helm's Deep assult). And I doubt
Gandalf and Co. would have revealed their plans for the ring to him. So
what could he have done to aid the cause, I wonder?

...Saruman has long studied the arts of the Enemy himself,
and thus we have often been able to forestall him. It was by
the devices of Saruman that we drove him from Dol Guldur. It
might be that he had found some weapons that would drive
back the Nine.

Granted that Sauron only feigned to have been driven from Dol Guldur,
Saruman still possessed much knowledge that would have helped the Free
Peoples withstand Sauron's onslaught as well as given the Wise insight
into Sauron's capabilities and ways these might be thwarted. For
example, the Fire of Orthanc (? gunpowder) would have been very handy
in countering the attack on Minas Tirith. Who knows what other
weapons/tactics he might have been able to provide; indeed, perhaps
even something to weaken or drive back the Nine, and the Witch-king
himself. And with the palantiri of Orthanc and Minas Tirith working
in tandem much could be accomplished both in intelligence as well as
communication/coordination. Just knowing that the two greatest Istari
in Middle-earth were united against him would be a heavy blow to
Sauron.

Barb
Where will wants not, a way opens.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:58:08 +0200, "Christian Hannibal"

1) How does Merry now about the dangers of the loose slabs? Sounds like
e - or Pippin - might have been close to having an accident...

Yes. After almost getting drowned in the guard chamber, they probably
were hypervigilant about any other hazards.

2) Gimli argues that he and Legolas should go with Gandalf, because they are
the only ones of their kin, but so are Merry and Pippin. Why do they not
want to go? One would think that at least Merry would want to go on behalf
of all hobbits? Are they just too afraid of Saruman? Why does not Gandalf
offer them to go? Does he fear the influence of Saruman's voice is stronger
on the hobbits - perhaps because they are simpler folk? But even if that is
the case, they must still be able to hear him from the bottom step...

Gandalf did offer a generic invitation to them all:

Those of you who wish may come with me -- but beware!

Merry and Pippin didn't hold back but accompanied the rest. It was
when they got to the stairs that Merry and Pippin stayed at the stairs
as Gandalf had ordered all but Theoden and Aragorn to do. They just
didn't push themselves forward as did Legolas and Gimli, and this I
think is merely consistent with their hobbit nature -- their
respective Tookishness and Brandybuck nature had gotten them out that
far -- indeed out far beyond where any hobbits except possibly Bilbo
and Frodo (and Sam, if Frodo was out there) would have ever dared to
go; in contrast think of how Fatty Bolger would have held up under the
circumstances -- but there was nothing to impel them to go forward to
the top of the stairs with the others. Elves and Dwarves were known
to be bold and proud; hobbits, on the other hand,

[e]ven in ancient days...were, as a rule, shy of 'the Big
Folk'...[and] possessed from the first the art of disappearing
swiftly and silently, when large folk whom they do not wish to
meet come blundering by...

It would have been very out of character for either one of them to
challenge Gandalf and insist on coming up the steps. They certainly
didn't wish to meet Saruman and probably were most happy to obey
Gandalf. Pippin had challenged Elrond in the case of selecting
members of the Fellowship, but that was a whole different matter, and
his challenge was based on his friendship and relationship with Frodo.

Pippin's wish that he could sneak back to the guard room is
understandable for any hobbit; his feeling that "we are not wanted" is
not realistic - Gandalf and/or Aragorn would easily have excluded them
from the parley with Saruman had they not wanted the hobbits there.
It's more of a personal revelation of his own inner feelings, perhaps
a negative streak in him that will appear more strongly in his
adventure with the palantir in the next chapter. Perhaps it is a
signal of the inner weakness that the palantir is able to work on
after Pippin picks it up a bit later?

4) How does Gimli see through the rhetoric?

As others have mentioned, dwarves are resistant to such things. Also,
he has an objective task to perform, suggested when they first met
Gandalf in Fangorn: to compare Gandalf and Saruman and see how much
they resemble or are different from each other. That mental
occupation gives him some resistance to the voice, as he shows when he
neatly sums up exactly what Saruman is actually doing:

the words of this wizard stand on their heads...In the
language of Orthanc help means ruin, and saving means slaying,
that is plain.

He even succeeds in ticking Saruman off for a moment with this
insight. Lovely!

And why are we not told what Legolas and
Aragorn felt about the voice? Not to mention Merry and Pippin.

Aragorn's reaction would have been interesting, but he probably was
just standing silently in his armor of Rohan so Saruman wouldn't
realize the Heir of Isildur was present; his inconspicuousness during
this confrontation is in marked contrast to his return there later as
King. Also Saruman wasn't "aiming" at any of the four, though likely
they all were caught up in that last effort Saruman made to get
Gandalf to come into the tower:

So great was the power that Saruman exerted in this last
effort that none that stood within hearing were unmoved....But
they were shut out, listening at a door to words not meant for
them: ill-mannered children or stupid servants overhearing the
elusive discourse of their elders, and wondering how it wold
affect their lot. Of loftier mould these two were made:
reverend and wise. It was inevitable that they should make
alliance. Gandalf would ascend into the tower, to discuss
deep things beyond their comprehension in the high chambers of
Orthanc. The door would be closed, and they would be left
outside, dismissed to await allotted work or punishment. Even
in the mind of Theoden the thought took shape, like a shadow
of doubt: 'He will betray us; he will go--we shall be lost.'

Aragorn knew Gandalf better; he might not have doubted, but he
probably was moved to some extent, too.

Saruman's initial rage when Eomer speaks, with the wizard calling him
a "young serpent," is enjoyable: he must have really been furious that
the "young serpent" had foiled his lovely plan to grab two hobbits and
possibly (for all he knew) even the Ring.

5) Why did Saruman pretend that he only knew the names of Gandalf and
Théoden? It has already been made clear to our heroes, that Wormtongue - who
knew about all the members of the company - is in the tower and would of
course have told Saruman of his encounter with the travellers in the hall of
Théoden .

Yet don't we learn later somewhere that Grima did not tell Saruman of
Aragorn's claim and Saruman didn't recognize Aragorn for what he was?
And remember, Grima was unconscious for most of the encounter at
Meduseld.

6) How come Théoden is able to resist Saruman's voice? One would think that
he was prone to being convinced, since Wormtongue was able to manipulate him
so effectively and Saruman is a lot more powerful than Wormtongue.

As people have said, he was burned before and thus more cautious, and
also what has been said about Wormtongue having had a longer time to
work on Theoden. But I think Eomer's outburst was the deciding factor
and that until then Theoden was indeed striving with both anger and
doubt (remember how he had missed both his counselors at Helm's Deep)
and could not make up his mind. Eomer reminded him of his son's death
and Hama's grave, and indeed was himself a living reminder of the
future of Rohan, the most likely candidate for the throne after
Theoden's passing. Thus Theoden found the ability to defy Saruman,
though with difficulty speaking at first, after Saruman cut Eomer down
to size. Maybe the picture finally fell into place at that moment.

7) A gibbet? That I the first time we hear of such things in LotR IIRC.
Seems like someone must have been executing people that way - and apparently
not just the bad guys. Do we hear of civilized people using executions
anywhere else in the books?

Well, Boromir, after hearing of Gollum's treachery, asks the Council
to what doom they put him, so the penalty of death was not unknown in
Gondor. Indeed, Faramir invokes it later on to try to force Gollum to
stick with Frodo. The mercy shown Gollum by the Wood Elves is
stressed as being unusual, isn't it? Gondor was presumably up at the
head of Mankind's civilization at that point in Middle-earth, so maybe
we can assume capital punishment was practiced among all Men. Hard to
imagine them carrying it out in Bree, though.

I don't know about the Elves or the Dwarves. It doesn't seem to have
been practiced in the Shire, of course.

8) It does not seem like Saruman is very surprised by Gandalf's presence,
though he must have thought that he was dead. And if he did not, then he
does not really show any signs of wondering why Gandalf's appearance has
changed.

Well, Saruman of all people would be the least surprised to see
Gandalf around, as he would know that a Maia could not die as mortal
men did. Maybe that was also a sign of his own decay, that he couldn't
conceive that Gandalf, or any Maia, would have sacrificed himself or
gone through any transformation. Perhaps the contraction of his own
sight kept him from even noticing Gandalf's changed appearance and
demeanor.

13) Why didn't Wormtongue, who must have been in Orthanc for a while, know
what the item was? It cannot have been hidden from him or anything, since he
could get to it so easily and one would think, that Saruman must have used
it quite often.

As others have said, Wormtongue wasn't in Isengard all that much, and
even when he was, Saruman wouldn't have used it in front of him.
Perhaps Saruman kept it locked up and it was out now only because
Saruman was using it frequently to try to see what was going on and/or
being called to report more often to it. Thus it was handy when
Wormtongue decided to bombard one or both of the wizards.

14) I wonder whether Gandalf stresses this to make sure that everybody
understood that what Saruman said about his motives was untrue.

That's the impression I've always had of it.

15) Why is there reason for Treebeard to dislike Gimli, just because he is a
dwarf? I know that dwarfs are not exactly portrayed as tree-hugging wild
life enthusiasts, but more like miners, who would not really have anything
to do with the forests. So how come Treebeard has such a bad impression of
dwarfs?

What Troels said about it going back to the discussion of Aule and
Yavanna. It goes all the way back to origins. Ents were allowed in
Arda in response to Aule's making of the dwarves.

18) I know that Tolkien disapproved of all interpretations of his work as an
analogy of modern issues, but I can't help thinking about whether Saruman's
demagogical rhetorical style was inspired by some politician of Tolkien's
time. Saruman's style is too subtle to be inspired by Goebbels, Hitler or
Mussolini, but do you have any other suggestions? (Slightly OT I know, but
as a student of political science and international relations I can't help
thinking of these things)

How about advertising? That was really building up in the 30s and
40s, given the advances in mass communication, though it was not yet
anything like the level it would reach (or plummet to, depending on
your POV - G) after WWII and since.

Barb

_____
Do not be afraid of doing good deeds. It is
another name for happiness. I know well
that good deeds lead to a ripening, a blossoming,
which is pleasing, joyous and happy for a long time...
Of three deeds this is the fruit. Of three deeds this
is the ripening, the deeds of Charity, Self-taming,
and Self-control.
-- Buddha
_____

[Jens Kilian]

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock

1) How does Merry now about the dangers of the loose slabs? Sounds like
e - or Pippin - might have been close to having an accident...

Yes. After almost getting drowned in the guard chamber, they probably
were hypervigilant about any other hazards.

They may have observed Wormtongue having some kind of accident on his way in.

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
[...] maybe
we can assume capital punishment was practiced among all Men. Hard to
imagine them carrying it out in Bree, though.

I'd expect Breelanders to practice shunning, or for the worst offenders to
simply throw them out of the village (which for a non-Ranger might be a death
sentence).

IIRC, when the Hobbits return to Bree, Butterbur tells them that Bill Ferney
and some others were banished.

Bye,
Jens.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 21:58:08 +0200, "Christian Hannibal"

<snip>

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock

7) A gibbet? That I the first time we hear of such things in LotR
IIRC. Seems like someone must have been executing people that way -
and apparently not just the bad guys. Do we hear of civilized
people using executions anywhere else in the books?

<snip stuff about Men executing people>

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
I don't know about the Elves or the Dwarves. It doesn't seem to have
been practiced in the Shire, of course.

Really? :-)

How about this...

"'Rope!' cried Sam, talking wildly to himself in his excitement and
relief. 'Well, if I don't deserve to be hung on the end of one as a
warning to numbskulls!" (The Taming of Smeagol)

Though this might only refer back to knowledge of past policies of
capital punishment or knowledge that it is carried out elsewhere. I
would suggest tales of the justice system of the Kings of Arnor.

Christopher

[Belba Grubb From Stock]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:45:50 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"

Post by Christopher Kreuzer

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
I don't know about the Elves or the Dwarves. It doesn't seem to have
been practiced in the Shire, of course.

Really? :-)
How about this...
"'Rope!' cried Sam, talking wildly to himself in his excitement and
relief. 'Well, if I don't deserve to be hung on the end of one as a
warning to numbskulls!" (The Taming of Smeagol)
Though this might only refer back to knowledge of past policies of
capital punishment or knowledge that it is carried out elsewhere. I
would suggest tales of the justice system of the Kings of Arnor.

Yes, that could be it, rather than that of the Elves (a rather extreme
example of which might be everybody's expectation that Thingol would
have Beren killed when Luthien brought him before her father--I don't
have "The Silmarillion" in front of me, but didn't Thingol tell Beren
he had "earned" death, or was that some other episode and other
characters in the tales?).

Certainly Frodo at one point thought Gollum deserved death. Much
later the general hobbitry in arms felt that Sharkey had earned the
death penalty, as Frodo had to work hard to prevent their applying it
immediately. And it was speedily dealt out to Grima after he commited
murder. One could argue that action sprang from passions in a war
zone, but given Frodo's earlier reaction to Gollum's story, it could
also be considered a reflexive action from a folk not unfamiliar with
the notion that "some folks need killing."

Barb

Conquer anger with love,
Evil with good,
Meanness with generosity,
And lies with truth.
-- Dhammapada

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 12:45:50 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"

<snip>

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
"'Rope!' cried Sam, talking wildly to himself in his excitement and
relief. 'Well, if I don't deserve to be hung on the end of one as a
warning to numbskulls!" (The Taming of Smeagol)

I forgot to mention that this actually seems to be proverbial. You don't
actually hang people to warn fools, you hang them to deter criminals.

The etymology of Noodles and Ninnyhammers has been discussed elsewhere
recently. Numbskulls seems less archaic to me, more like a compound word
of numb and skull, but maybe there is something linguistic there as
well?

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock

Post by Christopher Kreuzer
Though this might only refer back to knowledge of past policies of
capital punishment or knowledge that it is carried out elsewhere. I
would suggest tales of the justice system of the Kings of Arnor.

Yes, that could be it

<snip>

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
Certainly Frodo at one point thought Gollum deserved death.

Which I've never been very impressed with.

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
Much
later the general hobbitry in arms felt that Sharkey had earned the
death penalty, as Frodo had to work hard to prevent their applying it
immediately.

That seems to be mob justice:

"Don't let him go! Kill him! He's a villain and a murderer. Kill him!"
(The Scouring of the Shire)

I guess they might have formed a lynch squad or imprisoned him for trial
and execution.

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
And it was speedily dealt out to Grima after he commited
murder.

That seems justifiable. Wormtongue has just murdered someone with a
knife and is running off still armed. They are justified in stopping him
from harming anyone else.

Post by Belba Grubb From Stock
One could argue that action sprang from passions in a war
zone, but given Frodo's earlier reaction to Gollum's story, it could
also be considered a reflexive action from a folk not unfamiliar with
the notion that "some folks need killing."

I would hate to live in a society that felt that "some folks need
killing." I think you might realise that I am against the death penalty!

Christopher