|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 27 2023, 1:42pm
Post #1 of 17
(5655 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Saruman in other texts 1: The LOTR Appendices
|
Can't Post
|
|
To give a quick overview of what I hope to cover this week:
Today’s post will cover Saruman in the LOTR appendices. Tomorrow I will address his presence (and absence) in The Silmarillion. There is a lot of material on Saruman in Unfinished Tales, so I’ll break that into two posts, on Thursday and Friday. Finally, on Saturday I’ll turn to how Saruman was developed in the early drafts of LOTR, as documented in the HOME volumes on the history of LOTR. And if I get a chance, I’ll add in some notes in related texts, particularly The History of the Hobbit and The Nature of Middle-earth
Saruman in the LOTR Appendices
Most of the references to Saruman in LOTR appendices simply reinforce what is written in the text. There are references to him three different sections of APPENDIX A ANNALS OF THE KINGS AND RULERS: the fourth part of the first section, THE NÚMENOREAN KINGS: GONDOR AND THE HEIRS OF ANÁRION; the second section, THE HOUSE OF EORL; and the third, DURIN'S FOLK. And of course, there are some references to him in APPENDIX B: THE TALE OF YEARS.
In the section on the heirs of Anárion, the first reference describes how Saruman came to dwell in Isengard:
In the days of Beren, the nineteenth Steward, an even greater peril came upon Gondor. Three great fleets, long prepared, came up from Umbar and the Harad, and assailed the coasts of Gondor in great force; and the enemy made many landings, even as far north as the mouth of the Isen. At the same time the Rohirrim were assailed from the west and the east, and their land was overrun, and they were driven into the dales of the White Mountains. In that year (2758) the Long Winter began with cold and great snows out of the North and the East which lasted for almost five months. Helm of Rohan and both his sons perished in that war; and there was misery and death in Eriador and in Rohan. But in Gondor south of the mountains things were less evil, and before spring came Beregond son of Beren had overcome the invaders. At once he sent aid to Rohan. He was the greatest captain that had arisen in Gondor since Boromir; and when he succeeded his father (2763) Gondor began to recover its strength. But Rohan was slower to be healed of the hurts that it had received. It was for this reason that Beren welcomed Saruman, and gave to him the keys of Orthanc; and from that year on (2759) Saruman dwelt in Isengard.
1. The Steward Beren is described here as the greatest captain of Gondor since Boromir (for whom Boromir the member of the fellowship was named), and that therefore Gondor was able to recover its strength after the Long Winter faster than Rohan. Was Beren blinded by his “greatness” in giving the keys to Orthanc to Saruman to make up for Rohan’s comparative weakness?
The next reference states:
Turgon followed Turin, but of his time it is chiefly remembered that two years ere his death, Sauron arose again, and declared himself openly; and he re-entered Mordor long prepared for him. Then the Barad-dûr was raised once more, and Mount Doom burst into flame, and the last of the folk of Ithilien fled far away. When Turgon died Saruman took Isengard for his own, and fortified it.
2. The implication here is that Turgon was not a great captain, or leader of his people, or perhaps that there was simply nothing that he could do to stop the rise of Sauron. Is there anything that a stronger or wiser leader could have done to prevent Saruman from taking Isengard for his own, and fortifying it?
3. Is it also implied here that Saruman’s taking and fortifying Isengard was really just another prong of Saruon’s rise, or was Saruman a threat in and of himself?
The next sentence states:
‘Ecthelion II, son of Turgon, was a man of wisdom.
4. If Ecthelion II was such a man of wisdom, then why was it upon Turgon’s death (and thus Echthelion’s ascension to the stewardship) that Saruman was able to take Isengard and fortify it?
Finally, it is noted that:
Thorongil often warned Ecthelion not to put trust in Saruman the White in Isengard, but to welcome rather Gandalf the Grey.
5. I won’t rehash the discussion of Thorongil/Aragorn’s motivations, but we’ve already seen that it was upon Ecthelion’s taking the stewardship that Saruman took Isengard. Is there a reasonable argument that Ecthelion would have been wiser to work more closely with Saruman and encourage him to oppose Sauron, rather than aligning with Gandalf and letting Saruman cozy up to Sauron?
Saruman’s character is made clearer in the references to him in the section on the House of Eorl, since it was against the Rohirrim that his evil intentions manifested most clearly.
It was at the crowning of Fréaláf that Saruman appeared, bringing gifts, and speaking great praise of the valour of the Rohirrim. All thought him a welcome guest. Soon after he took up his abode in Isengard. For this, Beren, Steward of Gondor, gave him leave, for Gondor still claimed Isengard as a fortress of its realm, and not part of Rohan. Beren also gave into Saruman's keeping the keys of Orthanc. That tower no enemy had been able to harm or to enter.
In this way Saruman began to behave as a lord of Men; for at first he held Isengard as a lieutenant of the Steward and warden of the tower. But Fréaláf was as glad as Beren to have this so, and to know that Isengard was in the hands of a strong friend. A friend he long seemed, and maybe in the beginning he was one in truth. Though afterwards there was little doubt in men's minds that Saruman went to Isengard in hope to find the Stone still there, and with the purpose of building up a power of his own. Certainly after the last White Council (2953) his designs towards Rohan, though he hid them, were evil. He then took Isengard for his own and began to make it a place of guarded strength and fear, as though to rival the Barad-dûr. His friends and servants he drew then from all who hated Gondor and Rohan, whether Men or other creatures more evil.
6. Saruman’s “speaking great praise of the valour of the Rohirrim” is reminiscent of his initial praising of Theoden in the Voice of Saruman chapter. Were Fréaláf and “all” justified in thinking him a welcome guest? Is it only through the false gaze of being outside the story that we can see how clear it was that he was obnoxiously arrogant at best, and a tool of evil at worst?
7. From the beginning of his time at Isengard Saruman acted “as a lord of Men” even though initially he pretended to be a friend. Wasn’t that a blatant violation of his charge as one of the Istari?
There are several references to Saruman in the descriptions of the kings of Rohan. The first in the description of Fréaláf, largely repeats what is said above. Then, talking about Theoden’s father, Thengel’s return from living in Gondor, it is said that:
It was soon after Thengel's return that Saruman declared himself Lord of Isengard and began to give trouble to Rohan, encroaching on its borders and supporting its enemies.
8. Is there a connection between Thengel’s sojourn in Gondor and Saruman declaring himself Lord of Isengard and attacking Rohan?
During the time of Théoden, approaching the War of the Ring, it is said that:
In 2989 Théodwyn married Éomund of Eastfold, the chief Marshal of the Mark. Her son Éomer was born in 2991, and her daughter Éowyn in 2995. At that time Sauron had arisen again, and the shadow of Mordor reached out to Rohan. Orcs began to raid in the eastern regions and slay or steal horses. Others also came down from the Misty Mountains, many being great uruks in the service of Saruman, though it was long before that was suspected.
9. Why did no one suspect that the great uruks were in the service of Saruman early on?
The most interesting comment by far is made in the description of King Éomer Éadig:
When still young he became a Marshal of the Mark (3017) and was given his father's charge in the east marches. In the War of the Ring Théodred fell in battle with Saruman at the Crossings of Isen.
10. While most likely assumption is that Théodred was killed in battle with Saruman’s forces, the plain meaning of this statement seems to be that Saruman himself killed Théodred, For someone who is so careful with his language, why would Tolkien say this if it wasn’t true? And if it true, shouldn’t it be something important enough to be in the actual text?
The last reference to Saruman in Appendix A is in the section on Durin's Folk:
In the late summer of that same year (2941) Gandalf had at last prevailed upon Saruman and the White Council to attack Dol Guldur, and Sauron retreated and went to Mordor, there to be secure, as he thought, from all his enemies.
11. Did Saruman agree to attack Dol Guldur in order to help Sauron “be secure, as he thought, from all his enemies?”
Until Unfinished Tales came out, the primary description of the Istari was in the introduction to the Third Age in APPENDIX B THE TALE OF YEARS (CHRONOLOGY OF THE WESTLANDS)
When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow had fallen on Greenwood the Great, the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-earth. It was afterwards said that they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.
They came therefore in the shape of Men, though they were never young and aged only slowly, and they had many powers of mind and hand. They revealed their true names to few, but used such names as were given to them. The two highest of this order (of whom it is said there were five) were called by the Eldar Curunír, 'the Man of Skill', and Mithrandir, 'the Grey Pilgrim', but by Men in the North Saruman and Gandalf. Curunír journeyed often into the East, but dwelt at last in Isengard. Mithrandir was closest in friendship with the Eldar, and wandered mostly in the West, and never made for himself any lasting abode.
12. If no one else knew that the Istari were forbidden to “match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear,” certainly Mithrandir knew. So why did he not take more proactive action when Saruman began “act as a Lord of Man?” Did Gandalf feel that he also could not match Saruman’s power with power?
Finally, we have this statement:
2851 The White Council meets. Gandalf urges an attack on Dol Guldur. Saruman overrules him. Saruman begins to search near the Gladden Fields.
It afterwards became clear that Saruman had then begun to desire to possess the One Ring himself, and he hoped that it might reveal itself, seeking its master, if Sauron were let be for a time.
13. How does this statement square with the earlier statement that Gandalf prevailed on Saruman to attack Sauron and drive him out of Dol Guldur. Is this a sign that Saruman had really given up seeking the One Ring for himself and now was working on Sauron’s behalf?
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Menegroth
Jun 27 2023, 8:32pm
Post #2 of 17
(5611 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm excited, perhaps rather appendicited to see this summary. I've never focused on Saruman in this manner, and it's so interesting.
The Steward Beren is described here as the greatest captain of Gondor since Boromir (for whom Boromir the member of the fellowship was named), and that therefore Gondor was able to recover its strength after the Long Winter faster than Rohan. Was Beren blinded by his “greatness” in giving the keys to Orthanc to Saruman to make up for Rohan’s comparative weakness?
I read this differently, that Beregond is the greatest captain since Boromir, and that he (Beregond) succeeds his father (Beren) as steward in 2763. It was Beren who gave Saruman the keys of Orthanc in 2759, four years prior to his death. Beregond overcame the invaders from Umbar and the Harad and set aid to Rohan.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 27 2023, 8:39pm
Post #3 of 17
(5599 views)
Shortcut
|
I misread it. So maybe it was Beren's lack of greatness that led him to give the keys to Saruman. 
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Menegroth
Jun 27 2023, 9:44pm
Post #5 of 17
(5592 views)
Shortcut
|
|
True, and Saruman has the gift of persuasion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Saruman has the gift of persuasion, so he may have easily convinced Beren to hand over the keys.
When Saruman appeared at the crowning of Fréaláf, also in 2759, "speaking great praise of the valour of the Rohirrim", he was doing more of the same.
Likely not apparent to Gondor that Saruman was behaving inappropriately.
The first bad press about Saruman in Gondor may have come from Thorongil sometime between 2957and 2980, which is 200 years later. We know Gandalf was visiting Gondor at that time, since Thorongil told Ecthelion to trust Gandalf more than Saruman.
Was Thorongil more suspicious of Saruman than Gandalf was at that point? Possibly he knew that both Galadriel and Cirdan were concerned about Saruman. Plus he's smart about military strategy and Saruman's guidance wasn't helping matters.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
Ethel Duath
Gondolin
Jun 27 2023, 10:00pm
Post #6 of 17
(5595 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Very interesting. This ties some things together
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that I hadn't thought of before. There seems to be lots of opportunities to ask "What did he know and when did he know it" of several of the characters.
1. The Steward Beren is described here as the greatest captain of Gondor since Boromir (for whom Boromir the member of the fellowship was named), and that therefore Gondor was able to recover its strength after the Long Winter faster than Rohan. Was Beren blinded by his “greatness” in giving the keys to Orthanc to Saruman to make up for Rohan’s comparative weakness?
I think it's more likely that he was blinded, or at any rate distracted, by balancing the needs of his own nation with that of Rohan, most likely jumped up on opportunity (possibly offered by Saruman in the first place) to offload chunk of the responsibility to someone who want to let been trustworthy as far as he knew.
2. The implication here is that Turgon was not a great captain, or leader of his people, or perhaps that there was simply nothing that he could do to stop the rise of Sauron. Is there anything that a stronger or wiser leader could have done to prevent Saruman from taking Isengard for his own, and fortifying it?
I'm sure that Turgon wasn't of Beren's caliber, which doesn't mean he was a week or unwise ruler in his own right, Although he may have been by comparison. But I'm sure Sauron was looking for this opportunity, and if the leadership of Gondor was even just somewhat less effective, it have been just enough of an opening to be able to take advantage of it. And I'm sure Saruman was doing exactly the same thing.
3. Is it also implied here that Saruman’s taking and fortifying Isengard was really just another prong of Sauron’s rise, or was Saruman a threat in and of himself?
I personally think that Saruman was out for himself from beginning to end. Also, this comment: "A friend he long seemed, and maybe in the beginning he was one in truth," while partaking of the frequent Tolkien ambiguity, also makes it sound like he wasn't linked to Sauron at that point.
4. If Ecthelion II was such a man of wisdom, then why was it upon Turgon’s death (and thus Echthelion’s ascension to the stewardship) that Saruman was able to take Isengard and fortify it?
I always read this to mean Saruman had taken advantage of the transition of power upon the death of Turgon, rather than any specific permission or even weakness on the part of Echthelion, especially because it specifically says "when Turgon died," not "when Ecthelion ascended it to the stewardship," although I suppose that could be splitting hairs.
5. Is there a reasonable argument that Ecthelion would have been wiser to work more closely with Saruman and encourage him to oppose Sauron, rather than aligning with Gandalf and letting Saruman cozy up to Sauron?
I think that the contempt Saruman had for almost anyone other than himself made it pretty much impossible for Ecthelion to have had any real effect on Saruman. Even if that had occurred, it would've been most likely no more than skin deep, and certainly only temporary.
I'll attempt to tackle six through 13 a bit later.
(This post was edited by Ethel Duath on Jun 27 2023, 10:04pm)
|
|
|
oliphaunt
Menegroth
Jun 28 2023, 12:36am
Post #7 of 17
(5582 views)
Shortcut
|
9. Why did no one suspect that the great uruks were in the service of Saruman early on?
This was in the 2990's. Gandalf went to Isengard in 3018, where he was imprisoned and found out about the orcs. Guess if Gandalf didn't know, no-one would.
10. While most likely assumption is that Théodred was killed in battle with Saruman’s forces, the plain meaning of this statement seems to be that Saruman himself killed Théodred, For someone who is so careful with his language, why would Tolkien say this if it wasn’t true? And if it true, shouldn’t it be something important enough to be in the actual text?
When you get to Unfinished Tales I think we'll find out that Théodred was killed by one of the orc-men hybrids that Treebeard found abominable.
which reminds me of the Kinks song:
I'm an orc-man
I'm an orc, orc-man
Oh, I'm an orc-man
11. Did Saruman agree to attack Dol Guldur in order to help Sauron “be secure, as he thought, from all his enemies?”
The attack on Dol Guldur was first mentioned in The Hobbit It appeared that Gandalf had been to a great council of the white wizards, masters of lore and good magic; and that they had at last driven the Necromancer from his dark hold in the south of Mirkwood.
So, this brief outline was filled out. Gandalf planned the attack on Dol Guldur to coincide with events at Erebor. Saruman finally went along with the plan "since he now wishes to prevent Sauron from searching the River."
Saruman was, as usual, self-serving.
*** Middle Earth Inexpert ***
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 28 2023, 12:57am
Post #8 of 17
(5576 views)
Shortcut
|
Good call, though I probably won't mention that again when discussing UT since it doesn't really reflect directly on Saruman.
I suppose I could say that it is an alternative story, but I don’t really think this statement really means that Saruman killed Theodred himself.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 28 2023, 2:45am
Post #9 of 17
(5560 views)
Shortcut
|
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Jun 28 2023, 9:20am
Post #10 of 17
(5540 views)
Shortcut
|
If I could reply to everyone all at once I would!
I too am enjoying this look at Saruman! Which is nice for me because I often find Archives and Lore frustrating - I find it easier to work with the same folks turning up in characterised fiction. But that's one of the great things about the Reading Room - I can benefit from what others can do that I can't!
When Turgon died Saruman took Isengard for his own, and fortified it.
That seems to me to be what one might call a "Yikes moment" where -- at least looking back with hindsight -- the upcoming danger clearly reveals itself, but not enough is done to prevent it from unfolding further. Such things are pretty common when some retrospective, court case, public enquiry or whatnot reviews how come things went so very wrong. AnNd real-world history has many examples.
In the case of Saruman: my reading of that quote is that he unilaterally 'rips up the tenancy agreement' he has with Gondor, 'changes the locks' and sets himself up as pretty much an independent Kingdom of Isengard. Now of course maybe it wasn't so very stark as that, and some agreement with the Stewards was reached. (and my quote marks are inteded to show I don't htink he needs to have had a literal contract etc. ) But either way I think Gondor has ended up with an independent-minded marcher lord sitting on a key military and geographical choke point (Saruman's ability to close the Gap of Rohan against enemies is a plot point in LOTR, as we saw in Week 2).
Maybe there is further Tolkien material to give us an insight into what Gondor thought it had agreed, and why; or why there wasn't a more robust reaction from Minas Tirith to the annexation of a militarily important part of Gondorian territory (if that is what happened). Or, perhaps, why there wasn't a more robust reaction from the White Council to a wizard becoming a Lord of Men. It is easy enough to speculate about possible motives: wishful thinking, not having the power to do anything about it, too much concentration on the revived threat from Mordor, etc.
Seizing Orthanc also looks to me like the sort of experimental and reversible agression of which there are many examples in history. Examples in Tolkien's lifetime might include the lack of a robust response to increading aggression in the 1930s from Hitler, Mussolini or Imperial Japan. But a robust response might or might not work - for starters you have to have the nerve and the troops to do it.
--
I'm also wondering to what extent seizing Orthanc (or being given it, if that is what happened) is part of a Saruman master plan and to what extent he is already scrabbling to keep up with events.
As I understand it, Saruman Takes Isengard As His Own immeditely after he can no longer delay the White Council taking action against the Necromancer. Prior to the expulsion of the Necromancer, we think that Saruman was playing a double game. He knew that the One Ring still existed and was trying to find it, but without arousing suspicion. That could perhaps have been his best chance of 'victory' given that we're told he can't possibly fight Mordor without the Ring.
I think things get more difficult for Saruman once it is obvious that Sauron is back. It looks more like war now, in which troops and a defensible position might well be needed either to hold onto the Ring once it has been obtained, or to do what Saruman actually tries - send out a commando raid to snatch it. I'm supposing that either Saruman has long considered a military phase which knows he needs time to prepare, or that he's being an opportunist: the re-emergence of Sauron providing the chance to become a warlord, though that may not have been the plan all along.
Becoming a warlord is of course not without risks. Gondor, Rohan and the White Council don't cause immediate trouble, but Saruman's attacks on his neighbours to feed his war machine finally bring both Rohan and Fangorn to war.
And of course if Saruman is already (knowingly or not) a pawn of Mordor, then his seizure of Isengard is a prong, rather than a reaction.
--
Lastly, I remember that we thought about Saruman's palantir during the Denethor discussion (and will, I expect, discuss it more later this week once we get to UTs). In our earlier discussion we raised the point of whether one's chances of successfully using a palantir depended on whether one was a 'rightful' user. My shorthand for this concept is that the palantir somehow 'knows' whether it is being used by a lawful officer of the Crown of Gondor (and possibly whether it is being used in the lawful interests of Gondor). If those conditions aren't met, it doesn't work porperly (or works, but at risk to the user).
If that is right, and if Saruman has seized Isengard illegally, then maybe this has a big effect on how his palantir is going to help or delude him?
I know the language of 'lawful' and 'illegal' is probably a bit anachronistic, and it might be contentious wheher a palantir can 'know' things. But I hope it communicates to the forum the idea the rough sort of thing I have in mind, whilst not meant literally or being an exact analogy.
I also wonder whether we should wait and discuss this later on this week, nas part of teh UT section of these discussions?
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 28 2023, 1:34pm
Post #11 of 17
(5518 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for your extended thoughts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Very interesting indeed!
As for talking about the palantir here, I have no problem with that. Obviously the topic will come up again in a couple of days, but all I am really trying to do is open doors. Where people go once they open them is up in the air. If someone goes down a corridor that shows a glimpse of what is behind another door, all the better.
Until it joins some larger way
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Jun 28 2023, 3:54pm
Post #12 of 17
(5513 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Timeline of Saruman in Orthanc
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Isengard was a Gondorian fortress that was abandoned sometime in the Third Age, possibly around the time when Calenardhon was given to the Rohirrim.
2759 - The Steward Beren of Gondor allowed Saruman the White to become the Keeper of Isengard.
2953 - Last meeting of the White Council. Saruman withdraws to Isengard, takes it for his own and begins to fortify it.
3000 - Saruman dares to use the palantír of Orthanc and is ensnared by Sauron.
3018-3019 Events of the War of the Ring.
Saruman takes full possession of Isengard upon the death of the steward Turgon, father of Ecthelion II, in the year 2953. This is the same year that he deceived the White Council into believing that the One Ring had been washed into the Sea and lost.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Jun 28 2023, 6:27pm
Post #13 of 17
(5509 views)
Shortcut
|
Awesome coverage and an awesome opener Mr Aranwion :)
While I think about the other Qs, Question 8 grabbed my attention first, as well as oliphant's second reply, with the reference to Thorongil:
8. Is there a connection between Thengel’s sojourn in Gondor and Saruman declaring himself Lord of Isengard and attacking Rohan?
Why might Thorongil be counselling Ecthelion II against trusting Saruman and for welcoming Gandalf? It's stated in the brief and fragmentary accounts of the career of 'Thorongil' that he serves first in Rohan under King Thengel and then in Gondor under Ecthelion. So, by the time Thorongil turns up in Gondor and is in a position to offer advice to its Ruling Steward, he has had direct experience of the situation in Rohan. Banking that for context, we also learn from 'The House of Eorl' section of Appendix A that it was "soon after" the return of Thengel to Rohan, in III.2953 that Saruman:
declared himself Lord of Isengard and began to give trouble to Rohan, encroaching on its borders and supporting its enemies.
And I'll add this as well:
His [Saruman's] friends and servants he drew then [from III.2953] from all who hated Gondor and Rohan, whether Men or other creatures more evil.
Thorongil's service with Thengel begins no later than III.2957, so as a soldier in the service of Thengel he would presumably have had some exposure to the 'trouble' that Saruman visited upon Rohan. Now, we also have in the same section that, at least as far as the uruks out of the Misty Mountains were concerned, no one at the time suspected that it was Saruman directing the kinds of raids that ended the life of Éomund in III.3002. So what had Thorongil learned in Rohan that set his teeth on edge and led him to advise the de facto head of state of one of Middle-earth's most powerful countries to not trust the head of the White Council?
As oliphant said, if even Gandalf only clocked in III.3018 that Isengard was an orc-den and warg-pen, then it's unlikely Thorongil would have discerned this. And presumably if he had, for the internal narrative to function, he would have reported this to the likes of Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel pretty swiftly. So, I'm going to take it that Thorongil wasn't aware of Saruman treating with uruks or at least had no evidence of that. Nonetheless, for Thorongil to give the counsel he did to Ecthelion, it seems likely that it was his experiences in Rohan during this early period of Saruman's designs to establish himself as a Power that informed this view.
Are there any hints of what Thorongil could have noticed then? Well, Isengard had been fortified by Saruman in III.2953, only a handful of years before Thorongil arrived. He may well have noticed that and wondered why its tenant was bent on walling out the world. And if the 'trouble' that Thengel was experiencing also involved Dunlendings, Thorongil (and Thengel, for that matter) may have asked themselves why the Gap of Rohan was proving so permeable, when Isengard was in supposedly friendly hands.
Anyway, I've set out lots of speculation and answered very little along the way! I will nail my colours to this though: Thorongil is in a unique position to advise Ecthelion on recent goings-on in Rohan, and what he says is telling: 'don't trust Saruman'. We don't have any detail as to why Thorongil would counsel this but it's plausible he's concluded that not all is as it should be in Isengard.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Jun 28 2023, 6:58pm
Post #14 of 17
(5503 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the realpolitik of Saruman's lieutenancy of Orthanc
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Setting aside the question of whether an Istar should have been establishing himself at Isengard at all, I reckon Beren's creation of a lieutenancy in Isengard in III.2759 looks like a clever move - as measured by any Gondorian strategist of that era. A mini-version of Cirion, unequivocally a Ruling Steward of sublime foresight, if you will, a subsequent act to the cession of Calenardhon to the Éothéod, nearly 250 years earlier. After all, what to Gondorian lords do when they're running short of men and materiel? They (sort of) overcome their Númenórean ethno-centricism and look to outside resources. That, in this instance, they eventually fall victim to the schemes of a fallen Maia is what I'd call a 'black swan' event in project management terms ;)
As Otaku-sempai says, Saruman isn't known to be corrupted at this time and Tolkien drops hints in his feigned histories that Saruman probably is more or less still on the straight and narrow in III.2759, albeit with self-interest thrown in. It's also stated that King Fréaláf is just as pleased as Beren with the establishment of this new neighbour.
An aside. While re-reading the Appendices for this reply, I couldn't help but linger on this line:
It was at the crowning of Fréaláf that Saruman appeared, bringing gifts, and speaking great praise of the valour of the Rohirrim.
Bringing gifts and speaking praise... hmmm. Where have we encountered this kind of modus operandi before...? At the risk of saying (again) that Saruman is but a pale shadow of Sauron, I can't help but wonder if we're seeing the Annatar template in play!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Jun 28 2023, 8:07pm
Post #15 of 17
(5500 views)
Shortcut
|
|
the chronology of the custodianship of Isengard
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
At the risk of bringing in Unfinished Tales ('Cirion and Eorl' and 'The Battles of the fords of Isen', to be precise) early, there's material there that helps to shed light on the chronology of who was running the show in Isengard and when.
At the time of the Oath of Eorl and the cession of Calenardhon to the Éothéod (III.2510), Isengard - or Angrenost, as it was then called in Gondor - was:
still manned by a guard of Gondorians, but these had become a small settled people, ruled by a hereditary Captain, and the keys of Orthanc were in the keeping of the Steward of Gondor. ['Cirion & Eorl']
This information is supplemented in 'The Battles of the Fords of Isen', with:
the keys of Orthanc were taken to Minas Tirith, the Tower was shut, and the Ring of Isengard remained manned only by an hereditary Gondorian chieftain and his small people, to whom were joined the old hereditary guards of Aglarond [later, the Hornburg].
And:
They [the Rohirrim] meddled little with the 'Lord of Isengard' and his secret folk, whom they believed to be dealers in dark magic. And to Isengard the emissaries of Minas Tirith came ever more seldom, until they ceased; it seemed that amidst their cares the Stewards had forgotten the Tower, though they held the keys.
There's no date given for the ceasing of the emissaries. However, Tolkien gives us a wonderful bit of feigned historical deduction in the final section of 'The Battles of the Fords of Isen'. In III.2710, the Rohirrim learn to their cost, and accidentally, that Isengard had fallen out Gondorian hands - an event that had completely passed them, and presumably Gondor, by. King Déor (r. III.2699-2718) made this unpleasant discovery whilst trying to purge the Westfold of Dunlending raiders, only to find that the Dunlendings were in control of Isengard. We learn that the line of the hereditary Gondorian chieftains had failed some time before the death of King Aldor (III.2645) and that a 'mixed blood' people had taken control, who later 'connived' with and admitted Dunlending infiltrators. It was the latter, merged with the 'mixed blood' successors of the extinct Gondorian chieftains, who Déor encountered. And when Déor informed the then Ruling Steward, Egalmoth of this state of affairs in III.2710, Gondor "was unable to send help." The Dunlendings remained undisturbed in their control of Isengard until III.2759, when King Fréaláf starved them out.
Piecing all of this together, I'm going to go with Gondor maintaining meaningful control of Isengard, as per the terms of the cession of Calenardhon, from III.2510 until some time before III.2645, after which the Dunlendings and their local allies run the place until III.2759. At best, the Gondorian Captains of Angrenost last around 5 generations, after which any meaningful allegiance to Gondor is extinguished. That Minas Tirith and Edoras weren't even aware of this indicates the aforementioned 'emissaries of Gondor' had ceased coming even before c. III.2645, as the failure of the hereditary line was unknown to both Rohan and Gondor.
A tangent for the end of this post. I love it how Saruman isn't the first 'Lord of Isengard' to be suspected of 'dealing in dark magic'. And it speaks volumes of the Rohirrim and their approach to 'otherness'. A Gondorian captain is regarded as 'dark magician' and Lorien is regarded as a realm of 'net-weavers and sorcerers'. A superstitious lot, these Northmen!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
Jun 28 2023, 11:55pm
Post #16 of 17
(5493 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't have time to respond to each ot them (or any of them, really), I always enjoy the way that you think, and I'm happy to have sparked these thoughts from you!
Signed,
Bronweg
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Silvered-glass
Nargothrond
Jul 5 2023, 7:25pm
Post #17 of 17
(5182 views)
Shortcut
|
1. The Steward Beren is described here as the greatest captain of Gondor since Boromir (for whom Boromir the member of the fellowship was named), and that therefore Gondor was able to recover its strength after the Long Winter faster than Rohan. Was Beren blinded by his “greatness” in giving the keys to Orthanc to Saruman to make up for Rohan’s comparative weakness?
The situations of Helm and Beren though similar are not comparable with simple math, and in particular I think the rate of recovery would not be particularly related to the skill of the person in charge as a commander of armies. I don't think there is cause in to text to make assumptions about Beren's personal failings.
2. The implication here is that Turgon was not a great captain, or leader of his people, or perhaps that there was simply nothing that he could do to stop the rise of Sauron. Is there anything that a stronger or wiser leader could have done to prevent Saruman from taking Isengard for his own, and fortifying it?
If Turgon had wanted to retract Beren's gift, he could have done so and declared war against Isengard if necessary. Turgon had no reason for that though. Such would have been entirely irrational from his point of view.
3. Is it also implied here that Saruman’s taking and fortifying Isengard was really just another prong of Saruon’s rise, or was Saruman a threat in and of himself?
At that point Saruman still opposed Sauron. The fortifying of Isengard would have been Saruman's reaction to the rise of Sauron.
4. If Ecthelion II was such a man of wisdom, then why was it upon Turgon’s death (and thus Echthelion’s ascension to the stewardship) that Saruman was able to take Isengard and fortify it?
Ecthelion II being called a man of wisdom is an artifact of pro-Aragorn history writing. Ecthelion II was supporter of Aragorn and therefore Ecthelion II must be shown in a good light even when he doesn't really deserve it. (It is important to pay attention to who is writing even fictional history.)
Saruman had lived in Isengard since 2759. The change in Saruman's status was that he no longer considered himself a vassal of Gondor, though he still remained nominally friendly. Likely the only action he did to make himself independent was making the choice of not traveling to Gondor to swear personal fealty to Ecthelion II. Then Ecthelion II did nothing or nothing effective about that.
5. I won’t rehash the discussion of Thorongil/Aragorn’s motivations, but we’ve already seen that it was upon Ecthelion’s taking the stewardship that Saruman took Isengard. Is there a reasonable argument that Ecthelion would have been wiser to work more closely with Saruman and encourage him to oppose Sauron, rather than aligning with Gandalf and letting Saruman cozy up to Sauron?
Yes, a former vassal of the realm becoming independent sounds like the sort of thing that would deserve to be attended to, especially when the ex-vassal happens to reside in a strategically important location. Meanwhile Gandalf had no armies or a stable base of operations.
6. Saruman’s “speaking great praise of the valour of the Rohirrim” is reminiscent of his initial praising of Theoden in the Voice of Saruman chapter. Were Fréaláf and “all” justified in thinking him a welcome guest? Is it only through the false gaze of being outside the story that we can see how clear it was that he was obnoxiously arrogant at best, and a tool of evil at worst?
I think Saruman (later known as Gandalf the White) was genuinely able to give a very good impression of himself without resorting to crude spells like the stand-in at Orthanc. (I have also a theory that Saruman gave the immortal Shadowfax to Rohan as a gift. Shadowfax discussion when?)
7. From the beginning of his time at Isengard Saruman acted “as a lord of Men” even though initially he pretended to be a friend. Wasn’t that a blatant violation of his charge as one of the Istari?
Not necessarily. It depends on how his charge was worded. It is also possible to be a lord of Men while at the same time being a friend to the neighboring country.
8. Is there a connection between Thengel’s sojourn in Gondor and Saruman declaring himself Lord of Isengard and attacking Rohan?
I think Saruman's formal independence from Gondor is strictly related to the death of Turgon and the expiration of Saruman's oath of fealty. Thengel went to Ecthelion II's coronation but Saruman did not.
9. Why did no one suspect that the great uruks were in the service of Saruman early on?
Why would they have? There were Orcs in the Misty Mountains and they didn't have any diplomatic relations with humans. As far as humans knew, a larger breed could easily have come from somewhere and taken residence there in the underground cities. There was no reason to suspect the friendly wizard.
10. While most likely assumption is that Théodred was killed in battle with Saruman’s forces, the plain meaning of this statement seems to be that Saruman himself killed Théodred, For someone who is so careful with his language, why would Tolkien say this if it wasn’t true? And if it true, shouldn’t it be something important enough to be in the actual text?
Saruman was acting through his tools, as is clarified in The Unfinished Tales discussion.
11. Did Saruman agree to attack Dol Guldur in order to help Sauron “be secure, as he thought, from all his enemies?”
I think at that point Saruman had no interest in helping Sauron.
12. If no one else knew that the Istari were forbidden to “match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear,” certainly Mithrandir knew. So why did he not take more proactive action when Saruman began “act as a Lord of Man?” Did Gandalf feel that he also could not match Saruman’s power with power?
It is very arguable if simply acting as the legal ruler of a place counts as dominating with force and fear. As long as Saruman could say that he was popular among his subjects who voluntarily followed his orders, I think Gandalf would have had no standing to complain.
13. How does this statement square with the earlier statement that Gandalf prevailed on Saruman to attack Sauron and drive him out of Dol Guldur. Is this a sign that Saruman had really given up seeking the One Ring for himself and now was working on Sauron’s behalf?
I think Saruman - quite possibly the biggest and most habitual traitor in all of Tolkien - never really gave up on the idea of getting the One Ring for himself, even after he had betrayed the White Council and was siding with Sauron.
|
|
|
|
|
