Would you have been suspicious?

[Child of the 7th Age]

It is the year 2953. You are a member of the White Council which met in that year. At that Council, you debate about the Rings. Saruman, the leader of the Council, pretends he discovered that the One Ring passed down Anduin to the Sea. His voice and demeanor are admittedly convincing.

However, Saruman afterwards withdraws to Isengard and takes it as his own, fortifying it. You do not know this, but he sends out spies to watch Gandalf, and also put agents in Bree and the Southfarthing.

One manuscript in HoMe actually says Gandalf first began to think more seriously about Bilbo's Ring after this debate in 2953. Moreover, Gandalf does know that Bilbo told many lies about getting the Ring which was very uncharacteristic of him, and the wizard had serious suspicions about that.

Wouldn't you be wondering by 3018 why the White Council had not met again? Their previous meeting had taken place just twelve years before the last one (2941-2953).It has now been 65 years since you last met.

Moreover, by 2954, Mount Doom had burst into flames, a sure sign that Sauron had something under way. Since Sauron had openly declared himself and was gathering power in Mordor by 2951, there should have been no question that this foretold a serious downturn. Surely a meeting should have been called some time after the flames showing in Mordor. Why didn't Saruman call that meeting?

If you put all this together with the fortification of Isengard, and the fact that Saruman had overuled Gandalf's plan to attack Sauron back in 2851, wouldn't you begin to be a bit suspicious and at least want to learn more about Saruman's behavior?

I think I would. Perhaps, Gandalf and the others were so "good" that they could not envision a maia such as Saruman turning to the bad.

Perhaps I would be more suspicious than they because I live in the modern world. I have frankly heard too many untruths and half-truths voiced by politicians. I think I would have had a gut feeling that all was not well with Saruman.

How about you?

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Daniel Telcontar]

I fear that I would not have doubted Saruman. At that time they were not used to politicians. It was a battle between good and evil, and one does not lightly join the other side. Also, Saruman had been sent by Aule, and Saruman had the freedom of following his own agenda, if he thought that it was best. It is not easy to doubt a so important ally as Saruman no doubt were. And also, Isengard was a strategically important place. Maybe the other members of the Council thought that Saruman only occupied Isengard because it was well-suited for his studies, and then Gondor and Rohan did not need to care about it.
And if even Gandalf, with all his wisdom, and who had the most knowledge of Saruman, if even he did not doubt Saruman of treachery, I don't think the other members of the Council would.

[Gorothlammothiel]

I think that perhaps I would be suspicious of Sauruman, i'm not a very trusting person. However I do agree that it was more a case of good vs evil and how well one could stick to one side. You may have been considered suspicious yourself for doubting someone on the same side as yours I suppose......

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Synchronicity, Child of the 7th Age? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

It sounds almost as if you've read my most recent post earlier this afternoon in the On Patrol Discussion thread.

Doing my best to translate my mindset into words, perhaps my attitude can be summed up this way: * lights a bowl of pipeweed the better to ruminate *

While Saruman and I have had our differences to the point where relations between us have shown obvious strain during sessions of the White Council, he has been appointed to a position of rightful authority over me. In the absence of any clear evidence ... and evidence of what exactly, after all ... I uphold the honorable good name of Saruman the White as a matter of course, and keep before my mind's eye those good qualities of his which have led to his earning a position of leadership. A man should strive always to think well of those to whom he owes allegiance and obedience, lest he be tempted to pride, which leads in turn to the diminished carrying out of his own duty.

So Saruman has fortified Isengard ... in dangerous times, is seeing to one's legitimate self-defense unheard of, or is it instead the same wisdom which causes Lothlórien to look to the protection of its borders with such vigilance, and Imladris to seek to remain a haven safe from the growing Shadow?

Gandalf the Grey

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Gandalf_theGrey ]

[Beren87]

It always seemed to me that Gandalf had a sort of inferiority complex towards Saruman. Saruman was the wiser and more powerful before his fall, Gandalf even said as much. Perhaps he simply thought he was below such grand and complex ideas that Saruman could invision.


Or maybe I just eat to much sugar, it's got to be one of the two...

[Daniel Telcontar]

I don't think Gandalf had an inferior complex, he was just without pride. It did not matter to him what others thought of him. And he acknowledged Saruman as the leader of the Istari, but when he became a traitor, Gandalf made short notice of him (I love reading the part where Gandalf humiliates Saruman totally).

[akhtene]

Perhaps it's not exactly to the point, but I've been wondering a lot why most of good characters of Tolkien are so trusting or tend to take things too lightly. Everyone is deceived by Melkor and Sauron. OK, the first is Master of Lies, and the second is a good disciple of his, but the situation repeats over and over again. Don't people ever learn?
Saruman fooled not only Gandalf, but the whole White Council, including Radagast in an eye-to-eye talk.
Theoden listens to all lies poured into his ears. Denethor is ready to kill himself and his son...
To say nothing of many 'Silmarilion' heroes who are deceived or misinterpret things.
Another surprising thing for me, which I think falls in line with all that, is all the attempts to capture Gollum, but letting him escape (how many times?) Doesn't anybody appreciate his importance in the whole affair?
Well, what I was trying to say is that Gandalf is not an exception of the general rule. Perhaps Child is right that 'good’ characters were too good to suspect a maya of treachery and act on suspicion only. Though after Melkor and Sauron...
What I see in it is some kind of predetermination (providence ??) , when the events fall into some pattern, when the characters ( or should I say heroes) undergo all sorts of tests and nevertheless what has to be accomplished is accomplished.
Otherwise I’ll just have to accept that evil is smarter than good (which I don’t want to).

[Daniel Telcontar]

You forget, it seems, that being part of the good side means you have to trust people. What if Eomer had not believed Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli and ordered his men to kill them, because he didn't trust them?
Remember, evil often harms itself because it is so deceitful and distrustful. Saruman and Sauron were maybe allies, but they kept making trouble for the other part.
And remember Saruman's voice, which had an extreme power of convincing other people.

[Anorien]

you have to remeber that Gandalf considered himself protector of the innocent. he was too busy with other things to really notice. i would've!!! i mean, Sauruman is evil! look at hi name! sauron sauruman, see the similarities? lol!

[Kuruharan]

Otherwise I’ll just have to accept that evil is smarter than good (which I don’t want to).

Depends on how you define "smarter." At being manipulative and forcing their will on others then yes I would say the villians were smarter. On the other hand, they all came to bad ends and all their scheming ultimately failed, so in the end it did not benefit them.

I am a very suspicious person by nature, so I would have suspected Saruman, and everyone else, before we even got off the boat. However, I probably would have made a poor Gandalf.

During his conversation with Gimli, Aragorn, and Legolas after his return he says,
"How could I do so when I have councilled my friends to suspect even their own hands when dealing with the Enemy." He probably was not a terribly trusting person either. However, Saruman had been essentially the leader of the war against Sauron up until his defection. You generally don't expect the leader to defect to his enemy.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Akhtene -- You make some interestig points about how trusting those characters are who stand on the side of goodness. Perhaps, Gandalf would simply say it was inherent in their characters. I am sure he would point out that it is always better to err on the side of trust where there is any doubt about the individual involved. The harm that it does to one's own soul is a factor that can not be discredited.

And yet......

The one "good" character who sometimes went in the opposite direction was Sam, at least vis a vis both Aragorn and Gollum. Certainly, Sam was mistrustful of anyone or anything who seemed suspicious, at least in terms of offering a threat to Frodo. Actually, hobbits in general were suspicious of "outsiders". (even their own kind who came from "over the water").

It is true that Sam did not respond with a physical act against those he mistrusted. Yet even this is not totally clear. Without Frodo's constant restraint, I'm not certain whether Sam might have been tempted to use more extreme measures against Gollum. Generally, however, Sam simply kept the person he mistrusted under close personal observation to make certain he did not do any mischief.

LOL. Imagine if Sam had been faced with Saruman, and that he perceived Saruman as a threat to Frodo. I tend to think Sam would have snooped about to find more information, much as he acted as the "spy" for Frodo's friends at the beginning of the book! I have a humorous picture in my mind of Sam as Saruman's gardener sying on his boss. It would serve Saruman right, since he used so many spies.

Of course, the problem is knowing when to show trust and/or mercy and when to show a healthy mistrust. Who was to know that trust extended to Gollum would ultimately lead to a great boon, while the trust placed in Saruman would bear no outward results?

It should be noted that the trust extended to Saruman by the Fellowship extended to the very end of his life when Frodo himself insisted that he not be killed. So his own little nasty Wormtongue had to turn around and do it.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Belin]

I really don't believe that Gandalf was unable to comprehend evil in the way that, say, Manwe was. He was aware of evil in himself, at least, enough so to refuse the Ring. But I have noticed that he is slow to come to conclusions and to act upon suspicions. He considered the nature of the Ring for years and years without confronting Bilbo about it, and he understood that Gollum was dangerous but didn't take drastic measures (although he didn't exactly leave him alone either). I think that if he DID suspect Saruman (and it doesn't seem impossible to me that he did, although I'll have to go back to the text and make sure), his reaction was, in fact, a lot like Sam's, watching and waiting to see what would happen.

Me? I'd be utterly stunned and clueless. Radagast has nothing on me as far as naiviete goes.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[The Silver-shod Muse]

For Gandalf the Grey to jump the gun and announce his suspiciouns that Saruman had gone bad would be a huge move. And what if he had been wrong? The most powerful wizard in Middle Earth would become suspicious and maybe even angry with him. As they say, the guilty dog barks the loudest. Considering Gandalf's careful, shrewd personality, what he did was very much in character. Maybe he did wait too long, but all's well that ends well, and it certainly could've been worse.

Aside from that, who could he have confidently related his suspicions to? Galadriel? Elrond? It's safe to say that they probably would've counselled caution and prudence, something Gandalf was already doing.

[Birdland]

The very nature of evil dictates that you use any means to achieve your ends. Lying is just part of the job, along with diguising yourself in false colors, betraying your allies if it will advance your own cause, distrusting the motives of everyone around you, and sending your troops out to fight impossible battles, without regard for losses. (Because you can always pay or enslave more troops if needed.)

"Good Guys" have certain behaviors and rules they must follow, such as not killing without need, benefit of the doubt, "The Golden Rule", etc. If they don't follow these rules, then they become the very thing they are fighting.

Maybe Gandalf had his suspicions, but he would not bring these to light without proof. Saruman would have, in his meglomania, just assumed the worst and made up any "proofs" to back up his assumptions.

OK, maybe that's kind of a "black and white" way of looking at things, but that's the kind of attitude you have to take when battling Evil Incarnate.

[Bêthberry]

I would like to return the discussion to a point made by Gandalf the Grey.

... lest he [the character Gandalf] be tempted to pride, which leads in turn to the diminished carrying out of his own duty.

In support of our Gandalf's arguement that the right, true path is the path of morally righteous behaviour, I offer this story from a book I am currently reading, Our Lady of the Lost and Found by Diane Schoemperlen.

One of Schoemperlen's characters is Mary, the mother of Jesus. Mary tells the narrator the story of the Benedictine monk, Meinrad, who had sought solitude but whose holiness attracts many pilgrims. So many pilgrims that eventually his hermitage and his statue of the Black Madonna attracts two hoodlums, Richard and Peter. Mary appears to Meinrad and tells him of Richard and Peter and their intentions. She tells him what will happen.

Yet Meinrad welcomes them. He builds a large fire to warm their cold hands. He serves them fresh bread, cheese, stew, mugs of chocolate. He takes them to the chapel and introduces them to his pet crows and prays with them and waitsfor them to follow their intentions. He acts according to the Benedictine Rule that all guests must be welcomed as Christ would be welcomed even though he knows what their intent is.

Richard and Peter, after praying with him, smash his head in and then try to find the chapel's treasure. They are terrified by candles which suddenly light up and run away but the crows lead people to them.

Ultimately, Meindrad's chapel becomes surrounded by a large church. Five times the large church, over 400 years, is destroyed by fire. But the small chapel and the statue of the Black Madonna are unharmed.

Gandalf always arrives exactly when he needs to. This is why he is returned as Gandalf the White.

Bethberry

Edit: Sorry, Birdie, I started composing this post before you posted and so did not see yours until after I posted.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

[Bêthberry]

Child, I've been thinking about Sam, the 'good' character who is suspicious. This I think arises from his role as servant. LOTR, after all, does not represent a democracy. Let me give some other literary examples.

In the novel Jane Eyre, the young girl Jane has run away from Rochester after discovering his bigamist proposal of marriage. She takes a stagecoach far away and then gets out, wandering on the moors, having left her purse behind in the coach. She is starving and bedraggled after spending several night out on the cold moors. She finds a nice cottage and knocks on the door, begging some bread and shelter. The servant, Hannah, who is called honest but inflexible, rejects her request to speak to the ladies of the house, in part out of fear that "housebreakers" roam the neighbourhood. Jane is saved when the gentleman of the house, St. John Rivers, steps up and accepts Jane. His comment is

You have done your duty in excluding, now let me do mine in admitting her.

To this I would add Tolkien's comments on the difference between heroic and chivalric behaviour in his little essay "Ofermod" which concludes his dramatic poem The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth where he discusses the leaders who have responsibility downwards and the subordinates who have loyalty upwards. Here's Tolkien's comment on the character who uses that word, ofermod.

Yet the doctrine appears in this clarity and (approximate) purity, precisely because it is put in the mouth of a subordinate, a man for whom the object of his will was decided by another, who had no responsibility downwards, only loyalty upwards. Personal pride was therefore in him at its lowest, and love and loyalty at their highest.

Thus, I would say that Sam's suspicious behaviours are appropriate for his role and do not disprove the point that Gandalf must think well of Saruman until he has clear evidence to the contrary.

Bethberry

[Cimmerian]

To suspect Saruman at that juncture would mean massive cuts in the plot line, so for the sake of keeping a good story going I would keep quiet an let things unfold naturally... even if I was Gandalf. So much of my parts would be non-existent if Saruman's scheme of things were to be nipped in the bud.

Excuse me... I think I swallowed a Sobriety pill by mistake this morning.

[Daniel Telcontar]

bethberry has a good point. The word ofermod does not seem to me to have a meaning in english, but in my native language the word offermod means "sacrifice courage" in the sense that a person has the courage to sacrifice himself for another. That is, I believe, the kind of loyalty Sam has.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Bethberry -- I'm not sure if I see the sharp distinction by role alone that you see, i.e. Sam's role as a servant. I think it is more a difference in personality as well as an extension of Sam's personal feelings for Frodo.

Frodo hasn't explicitly appointed Sam to the role of "doorkeeper" to screen out his contacts or to shield him from the bad things of the world. I would say the servant in Jane Eyre acts out of a sense of duty and her designated responsibiliy in enforcing certain general rules and standards, but Sam operates primarily out of love.

It is Sam who assumes this role of shield because he has come to love Frodo and wants to protect him. I believe Sam's suspicion and desire to protect comes out of his growing friedship with Frodo rather than strictly his role as servant.

Believe me, as a mother, I understand Sam's protective instinct. There are times when I feel obligated to ask questions and check up on things, at the very minimum, in order to protect my children.

So, despite some things that have been said in this thread, about the need to be above suspicion and extend trust, not to adopt the way of thinking of the enemy, there are times in my personal life when my own gut tells me to be careful. It is one thing when I am dealing with my own safety alone. It is another when I am dealing with the safety of younger ones whom I feel have been entrusted to myself and my husband. If I feel that there is any question about a place that my children are going on their own, about its safety or morality, you bet I am going to do some inquiry! If that is adopting a suspicious attitude, then so be it.

To me, the White Council was put in the role of elder advisor and protector for Middle-earth. In my opinion, they should have felt more of that desire to protect. And I truly believe if Sam had been placed in the position of knowing and understanding what the White Council knew, and if Sam felt that Saruman would have threatened Frodo in any way, he would have responded, at least by snooping as he did in the early chapters of the book.

Obviously, Sam did not have this information, and was not in this position. I know I am acting as a gadfly here and overstating my case. But I think there is more than one way that one can legitimately respond.

At the very least, as a member of the White Council, I might have questioned why no meetings had been called for over sixty years when Mount Doom had "relit" and was beginning to belch out flames for the first time in presumably thousands of years.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit and gadfly

[*Varda*]

I, personally, feel that I would have noticed something odd was going on, and the White Council appeared to be taking no notice of it. What I would have done, however, is a completely different matter.

Although Gandalf seemed to be unaware of Saruman's turn to evil, he did seem to be very busy during those years as he tried to find out if the ring was truly the One Ring. Perhaps too busy to really dwell on what Saruman was up to.

And if he did discover earlier Saruman's treachery, what could he really have done? Openly attacking him would simply draw more attention to themselves and possibly bring disaster. It would possibly also lose any secrecy of taking the ring to Mordor, as both Sauron and Saruman would be more aware of what was going on and the rest of Middle Earth attempting to rise up against them. I think that discretion was the best way forward.

~*Varda Elentari*~

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Bethberry:

The examples in your posts illustrate the sense of rightness inherent in respect for morality for its own sake, as well as respect for legitimate authority, in an excellent manner.

As for Child of the 7th Age's questioning why there had been no White Council meetings called for over sixty years despite warning signals such as the relighting of Mount Doom ... personally, I was in no hurry to call a Council meeting where my ideas would likely be voted down and my hands tied. Better to go silently forward taking action, than by speaking of action, be unable to take it.

Gandalf the Grey

[Bêthberry]

Child,

You are correct. Frodo did not appoint Sam 'doorkeeper.' It was Gandalf who gave Sam his role, initially when Sam said he wanted to see elves. But part of Sam's character is that very fearful attitude toward the world which Hannah represents. Witness his fear when Gandalf catches him at the window, "Mr. Frodo, sir!... Don't let him [Gandalf] hurt me, sir! Don't let him turn me into anything unnatural!" Sam is called "Master Samwise" in the Grey Havens chapter. Is he in the early first chapters?

I take your point about asking questions in defense of children. Yet concern for their wellbeing also includes strategy. In the cases you name, simply asking about the context is sufficient; nor does it imply casting any wrongful aspersions; it is rather just a desire for information.

Other strategies are also called for on other occasions. Gandalf the Grey's point about wishing to keep his hands free is just such a case of strategy. To keep to your context of parenting, there are ways of addressing schools and principals about teacher's treatment of children which antagonize the principal and teacher and other strategies which whill lead the officials to listen to the concerns.

It is this use of strategy which is preeminently Gandalf's strength. He is good, but not naive.

Bethberry

[Bêthberry]

Daniel Telcontar,

You have the word offermod in your language? That is fascinating! Do you speak Danish or another Scandinavian language? Can you tell me if it is used (ie, is important to the meaning) in any of the old myths and legends of your language? How old is the word? What did it mean a thousand years ago?

The word ofermod that I referred to comes from the poem The Battle of Maldon;it does not exist in modern English. It comes from Old English (the language Tolkien taught at Oxford). Translating it has long been a topic for discussion. It isn't really honourable because the man who speaks it blames the hero, Beorhtnoth, for causing the deaths of so many men and making the decision which lost the battle out of personal vanity or chivalry rather than out of the warrior code.

Here's the translation Tolkien provides:

then the eorl in his overmastering pride actualy yeilded ground to the enemy, as he should not have done.

I would be really intrigued to know if that word is used in other early heroic literature.

Bethberry

[Daniel Telcontar]

I speak Danish as my native language; but although I have read the Norse myths several times, the word offermod does not occur. Nowadays it is not often used, but I have read parts of "the battle of Maldon", and since Old English were closely related to Danish (with the Vikings) I think that is the link between ofermod and offermod.

Another note: We also have the word overmod, and it is maybe the same word, v often changes into the sound f as in German. And Overmod means something close overmastering pride, so I guess that is the closest relation.

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Daniel Telcontar ]

[bombur]

Child of the seventh age asked originally whether we the others would have been suspicious of Saruman... I yet must comment a bit.

I most certainly would have been. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Also, had I possesed his knowledge, I most certainly had claimed that the ring ended in an ocean. I'd started a frantic search to find it... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Perhaps few orcs might come in handy as well. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

Elrond said to Gimli that those who have not seen sun set should not swear loyality in the time of darkness.

Gandalf knew himself so well and honestly that he refused the ring. He also said of Saruman that the deceitfull never can trust.

Those who have not been offered power, should not assure that they could resist the temptation. I would not have trusted Saruman and probably could not have resisted the temptation either. Perhaps theese are the different sides of one coin.

Boromir and Saruman are perhaps the charachters in the epic I most strongly emphatise with.

And by the way... someone mentioned politicians... I am one... young and idealistic one perhaps, but I wonder if either lasts...

[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Janne Harju

[Tirned Tinnu]

I've enjoyed reading this thread tremenously! The comments on "ofermod" are indeed illuminating.

But I shall make a comment on the original question posed:
Why did Saruman decline a meeting, and why did the council not act?

Saruman told the council to wait, and watch.
His reason was to gain himself time to search The Gladden Fields and The River Anduin (for the Ring.) He knew that he was close, and did not desire that Sauron know of his meddling.

Why Saruman as the leader? The position was offered to Gandalf, who refused it. He was too busy. it was also offered to Galadriel, who refused it also. She and Gandalf thought Saruman, with his extensive knowlege of Sauron and the Rings, would be of more help and better leadership than they.

In the end, in hindsight, it was a terrible mistake. but then, who knew of his ownership of the Palantir? None. They just assumed he knew somuch because he was Saruman, the highest ranking Istari in the lands...

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]