I've wanted to chime in on this discussion ever since it got going.
Now I hope I've found the time, but it means that I'll be
reconstructing older parts of the thread that I wish to address also.
I'm afraid that I am repeating myself a lot -- I'm sorry but the
alternative would be to rewrite the whole thing into a new post, and
I don't have _that_ much time :-) One advantage of doing this in a
Tolkien context is that you'll all understand the idea that thing may
grow in the telling . . .
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Stan BrownI still wouldn't count Saruman's ring, because even *he*
doesn't say that it's magical. (And if he had, I wouldn't
believe it unless he gave a demonstration.)
I would. Look, he's a Maia. He's imitating Sauron.
He's *trying* to imitate Sauron. Apparently, he failed.
So far as we know....with limited power as an Istar (is that the
singular) his success would also be more limited. Besides, even
if he did fail, unless we want to argue that Saruman was just
interesting in making a pretty ring, even in failure, it would
make his ring a magical object...just a failed one, or a limited
one.
To address this, the original issue, from the outset, I agree that
Saruman's Ring is most likely 'magic' (at least as the hobbits would
use that word). Otherwise there is really no point in Saruman's boast
in calling himself 'Saruman Ring-maker'.
This doesn't mean that his ring was anywhere close in power to the
great Rings of Power -- it was in a very real sense an essay in the
craft and as such it was, IMO, probably more comparable to the rings
that Gandalf describes as 'lesser'.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandHe's lost his power, except that of his voice.
Because that power was taken from him by Gandalf the White
(representing the Valar, or even Eru). Not because Saruman put
it into this ring.
Gandalf takes from him his position. Not his power. Gandalf
casts him out of the Order (Istari) and the Council and
Saruman's staff breaks...there is nothing about Gandalf taking
away his power.
But isn't that power (or rather, the ability to use part of the
power of a Maia in ME) strongly connected with the position of
being an Istar?
No, not the kind of power we're talking of. Gandalf had neither
the authority nor the ability to change Saruman's *nature* as a
Maia or Istar anymore than Gandalf could take the power of the
Balrog...only defeat it.
Gandalf himself -- certainly not.
I have, however, argued that Gandalf was delegated authority to
_judge_ Saruman and that, by Gandalf's judgement, Eru's authority was
exerted to remove most of Saruman's power. This would be a task which
was placed on Gandalf the White when he returned from the Timeless
Halls, whence he had strayed in death.
I should say that the symbology of breaking Saruman's staff clearly
implies the removal of Saruman's Wizardly powers, not just the
expulsion from the Order of Wizards: the parallel to the situation in
Meduseld where Gandalf's staff is clearly being tied to his powers is
unmistakable regardless of whether both are symbolic or real. The
implication in Edoras is clearly that Gandalf would be powerless
without his staff -- this was undoubtedly symbolic on Tolkien's part
(and a mistake on Wormtongue's), but my point is that the exact same
symbolism is later applied in the confrontation in Isengard where the
breaking of Saruman's staff symbolizes, IMO, the breaking of his
power. This symbolism is also used elsewhere in that conversation
when Gandalf asks Saruman to help them, saying that he would have to
hand over his staff as a pledge of his conduct.
The discussion of this is unfortunately not made any easier by
Tolkien's inconsistent descriptions of the relative power of the
various known Maiar in the War of the Ring, though it seems to me
that the idea that is most consistent with the book itself and with
his later descriptions is the statements that the Istari, in their
Maiarin origins, were _peers_ (in 'power' or 'Valinorean stature') of
Sauron (in his origin). Sauron was not much reduced by the end of the
Third Age compared to what he had been at the beginning of the First,
but the Istari were very reduced compared to their original natures.
Some of this can be explained by the manner of their incarnation
(which must have been different from the usual self-arrayal of the
Ainur -- even different from Sauron's body to which he had become
bound), but this explanation doesn't seem to me to be sufficient. It
does sound foolish in retelling, but it seems to me almost as if the
Ëalar of the Istari were weakened before they were allowed to depart,
as if they were forced to externalize some of power even before their
remaining power became shrouded by their incarnation as Istari.
This, however, is not really pertinent to the present question of how
Saruman lost what power he had (besides the power of his Voice).
Post by WelandSaruman's power, unless he himself sent it somewhere or a greater
power took it from him, is still a Maia no matter how far fallen
from grace.
Agreed.
My suggestion, as implied above, was that the latter took place: that
the greater power was Ilúvatar (I even doubt that any of the Valar
would have been able to do this) who acted to execute the judgement
which it had been given to Gandalf to deem.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachWith the Valar opposing the use of such power in the affairs of
ME, and with the safeguards they already had in place, I would
be really surprised if they'd allow anyone to keep that power
outside of the order of the Istari.
But they did. Saruman had been doing this *for years*, and had a
ring of his own for sometime. Besides, the Valar have chosen to
act from the sidelines. They send Istari. They send a dream with
a riddle in a rhyme. They send a fortuitous wind. But directly
intervene? No. So while I can imagine all I like about what I
think the Valar should do, a proposal that they acted directly or
through Gandalf in reaction to Saruman seems contrary to
everything we know.
I don't think the Valar had the power to do anything about it anyway.
Unless they turned up in person, or otherwise sent some overwhelming
power, Saruman was free to ignore them, and even if they did turn up,
all they could have done was to take him prisoner and drag him back
to Valinor -- I don't believe that they would have the power to rob
Curumo of his native power any more than they had the power to make
Lúthien mortal (another thing that took the direct intervention from
Eru to achieve).
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandIf Saruman retained his native power, he would have been to
stand and do more than watch the Ents dismantle Isengard.
Exactly. So his power must be gone. What happened right before we
can see his power is gone? Gandalf casts him out of the Order.
Hmmm...
I think I'm going to invite you to reread the novel. Apparently
the order of events in the tale is no longer familiar to you. The
Ents attack Isengard *BEFORE* Gandalf casts him out of the order
and Saruman's response is not to cast fireballs or fight or use
any power at all, but rather to run away. This indicates that his
power is gone already, other than that in his voice. That is,
Gandalf casting him out of the Order happens AFTER we see his
power gone.
You are assuming that Saruman the Wizard at any point in his
Wizarding career would have had the power to withstand the concerted
attack by the Ents. I _very_ much doubt that to be the case. Gandalf
the White was definitely stronger than Gandalf the Grey, and he was
probably also more powerful even than Saruman (whether White of Many-
coloured), but not even he would, IMO, have been able to defend
Isengard against the Ent attack. Probably not even Saruon could have
done that. The portrayal in the Jackson film of Sauron as an
invincible robot that is defeated by luck rather than strength and
skill is, I believe, false: Sauron was 'cast down' by Gil-galad and
Elendil (with helpers), and if he could be cast down by these five
(IIRC), then surely he would also have been unable to withstand the
Ent attack, and Saruman even more helpless against it.
I don't agree that Saruman, even if he had retained his native power
(and much less with his full Wizard power), would have been able to
do more than he did against the Ents, and so his inability to do so
is not, IMO, evidence that he had lost any further power at this
point.
I'm not sure what incident Dirk is thinking of, but the first
indication that I can find that unequivocally points to Saruman
losing his powers is when they come back to Isengard after the
Crowning to find Saruman gone, when Gandalf says to Treebeard that
'this snake had still one tooth left, I think. He had the poison of
his voice, and I guess that he persuaded you, even you Treebeard,
knowing the soft spot in your heart.' However, when Gandalf spoke to
Saruman
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandThe novel doesn't answer quite where his power went. And no,
breaking his staff wouldn't remove his power.
Breaking his staff was probably only a symbol, anyway.
Agreed.
And agreed ;-) (but not an insignificant symbol)
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandFor one thing, he's already lost it as if I recall correctly
we're already told, and his power isn't in his staff.
But it needn't be "in" some item. The Istari were tightly
controlled by the Valar. They had to "shed" much of their power
before coming to ME in the first place. Gandalf was given some
of it back, when he returned after his death.
Under these circumstances, it's easy to imagine that Saruman
(as one of the Istari) could have been "made" to loose his
power completely.
True that he was limited as one of the Istari, but that doesn't
indicate that someone could make him lose his power.
It doesn't. But it makes it very likely, because it fits well
with the mechanisms we can already observe.
No it doesn't. Show us an Istari whose power is lost through
someone else in Middle Earth taking it from him.
As far as I am aware, we only have two explicit (and thereby
incontrovertible) examplea of any Maia in Middle-earth having their
power changed in any way by the actions of others than themselves:
Sauron losing his power because of the destruction of the Master
Ring, and the enhancement of Gandalf by Ilúvatar that you mention
below.
Any theory that doesn't follow the mold of one of these would, IMO,
have to lift an increased burden of proof.
Post by WelandIf Ulmo came striding up to Orthanc's door...ok, there are v
likely some Valar who would have that ability had they been there.
Do we have any examples of Valar actively changing the power of
another Ainu?
I was first thinking of Arien and Tilion, but I don't think their
powers were changed when they were installed in their respective
vessels -- at most they were able to draw upon the power of the two
fruits, but that isn't quite the same thing, IMO.
Apart from that I can only recall the Istari, but whatever was
involved, their loss of power was certainly voluntary and presumably
they even assisted with it (the construction of their bodies being, I
believe, the only part that required the Valar).
Post by WelandThere was just an enhanced Gandalf.
Which required the direct intervention from Eru.
Post by WelandIs Gandalf able to change Saruman's nature as a Maia, or even to
remove his power while he is embodied? Doubtful.
Would Olórin the Maia have been able to change the power of Curumo
the Maia or of Saruman the Wizard in any way? I would also consider
both of these scenarios to be highly doubtful.
Post by WelandIf he could then the loss of life in all those battles in the
novel were utterly unnecessary and are solely on Gandalf's head.
Well, there's that too . . . :-)
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandI would argue that at least some of his power he sent into his
ring...whether he was as successful at it as Sauron or able to
do as much with it as Sauron it immaterial.
That's a very interesting take on it; one that I had never
considered.
I've already given my own take on it, but that obviously shouldn't
stop me from considering alternatives :-)
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandOn the other hand, we have examples of power being shed into
objects in order to achieve some end, the very folk Saruman was
seeking to imitate and perhaps even better.
I am not sure if you are actually suggesting that Saruman was trying
to create another Master Ring? If that is not your suggestion, I'll
be beating a straw man, but this would not really make much sense, in
my opinion. We know that Saruman's policy was to find the One Ring
for himself in which case he would not need another Ring with the
same power, and if Sauron found the One Ring, the game would in any
case be up (not even Saruman could believe himself able to make a
Ring that could master the One).
I can see Saruman trying to make a lesser ring -- as powerful as
possible, obviously -- and I could even see him trying to pour some
of his strength into such a ring, but to pour _all_ of it into a Ring
in an attempt to overpower even the One Ring while he was still
hoping to find the One for himself? No, I can't see him doing that.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachYes. So, as you pointed out yourself, if he had retained his
power because it had been externalized in his ring, he would have
been able to do much more besides standing and watching the Ents
dismantle Isengart. He didn't. Conclusion?
Neither he nor any other had the power to do much more than stand and
watch the Ents dismantle their fortress. Personal power in Tolkien's
world never seems enough to really stand against whole armies (and
the ents count as an army in their own right) -- as mentioned above
it only took five people (though admittedly some pretty awesome
people) to bring down Sauron at the end of the Second Age. And I
can't see Gil-galad, Círdan, Elrond, Elendil and Isildur as having
been able to do more than Saruman did if they had been defending
Isengard.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachAll his power is gone, even any power possibly externalized into
any items (if he ever succeeded).
Except that at the time I'm talking about he hasn't been cast out
of the Order....so either he was always much weaker than Gandalf,
or something happened to his power.
I'm not sure what the comparison to Gandalf does here -- surely there
is no explicit comparison of their power until Isengard has fallen
and Gandalf expells Saruman? I quite agree that there is not
necessarily any implicit comparison of their personal power in the
imprisonment of Gandalf.
Post by WelandI suggest that based on what we know in the story and of Saruman
and his activity, that he did something with his power before his
encounter with Gandalf (there's not magic battle in the books,
Gandalf is taken by force of arms),
There is, in my opinion, nothing in the text that points to any
change in Saruman's power until Gandalf's comment in the 'Many
Partings' chapter near the end of the book. This comment, in my view,
implies that Saruman had already lost what other powers he had when
he became effectively imprisoned in Orthanc by the Ents (on Gandalf's
behest).
Post by Welandand considering his study of ring-lore and his desire to imitate
Sauron, and that Gandalf mentions the detail of his ring, that we
look to his ring.
I agree that Saruman's ring was most likely magic, and I'm willing to
consider the idea that he let some of his own power into that ring,
but I can only imagine one of two possibilities in this.
1: Saruman let only a very small portion of his own strength into his
ring.
As you say elsewhere, Saruman's ring-lore was not enough to really
make a magic ring, but he knew enough to empower an otherwise non-
magical ring with a bit of his own power. Having done that, he now
had a magic ring, which boosted his self-image without making any
actual difference. In this case the ring was magic, but Saruman's
personal power was not measurably affected by his ring-making.
2: Saruman poured all of his native strength into the ring.
In an attempt to make a Master Ring of so great power that it could
even wrest control of the lesser rings from the One Ring, Saruman let
his strength completely into the ring. This would leave him open to
the same weakness as Sauron, and either he had access to this
strength, or he would be destroyed. Even if we allow that he did not
succeed in his ultimate goal, and that he was not even strengthened
while actually wearing the Ring, he must have been able to draw on
the power of the ring in order to avoid Sauron's eventual fate.
I cannot imagine any scenario that would make it a rational choice to
do something in-between these two extremes. This is possibly an error
with my fantasy, but in Saruman strikes me very much as an 'all or
nothing' kind of Wizard.
<snip>
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachBut then you'd have to explain why he cannot use any of it. If
it is still present, in the ring.
Inadequate ring lore? He did it wrong?
That's what I'm saying: He failed in imitating Sauron.
So? If that's all you're saying, so what? How does that affect
the point I'm making that Saruman's ring be considered as probably
magical?
Not at all that I see.
If I have achieved nothing else with the above, I hope to have at
least managed to separate issues that are not necessarily depending
on each other.
Saruman's ring can be magic without him having to pour any power into
it.
Saruman's ring can remain powerless (and hence not really magic at
all) no matter how much power he poured into it (until the point
where it would 'kill' him).
_If_ he did pour some of his power into his ring, we still cannot say
how much (though I believe it would be one of two extremes).
Post by WelandBesides, I'd say Saruman succeeded in imitating Sauron....whether
the imitation achieved the same level as the original is beside
the point of the actual imitation.
Yes. And Saruman certainly imitated Sauron in many ways, and ring-
making was just one of these.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachBut that doesn't mean he lost his power during process of making
the ring: When Gandalf visited him, he wore his Ring, and he had
enough "power" to capture Gandalf and hold him prisoner. So,
clearly, the making of the ring cannot cause the loss of power.
So you think Saruman was interested in wearing pretty jewelry? We
know from Sauron's example that if you want a Ring of Power as
Saruman clearly does that you have to give some oomf to the
ring...some power.
Actually that doesn't appear to be the case for an 'ordinary' Ring of
Power. Nobody appears to have let any of their personal power into
the Three, the Seven or the Nine, much less into the lesser Rings. I
believe it is stated somewhere that Sauron needed to give his Master
Ring some of his own 'oomf' only because he wanted it to be able to
dominate all these other very powerful rings.
I think you would only need to use your own power if you wanted to
make something that was over-the-top powerful, or if you were too
unskilled a ring-smith to create an 'ordinary' Ring of Power like,
for instance, Narya, by the normal means.
[That Saruman]
Post by WelandPost by Dirk Thierbachexternalized part of his power into a ring.
I'm suggesting that this is why Saruman wears a ring and why it is
mentioned to us and why we should at least entertain the idea that
Saruman's ring is magical.
I quite agree that the reason that Saruman wears a ring and that this
fact is pointed out to us is that the ring is in some sense a magic
ring, a Ring of Power. Coming from there to the idea that Saruman
externalized a some part of his own power in order to make that ring
is, to me, a little more shaky, but still a reasonable proposition.
That he should have poured the main part of his power into the Ring
and then found in inaccessible is, to me, very doubtful.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachI certainly agree that the *intention* of Saruman was to make
some sort of magical item, in imitation of Sauron, whether by
externalizing his own power, or by some other process more
similar to the other Rings.
And the question if you can call a failed attempt at an magical
item "magical" isn't really that interesting -- that's a matter
of opinion.
I wonder . . .
What are our reasons for presuming that the ring didn't work? That we
don't 'see' Saruman doing anything with it? But we don't actually see
Gandalf do anything with _his_ Ring either. We do see Gandalf do a
lot of things associated with fire, and presume that Narya is somehow
involved, but Saruman's ring, if it was a Ring of Power, would have
the same primary focus as Sauron's -- namely to dominate others, and
we do see Saruman doing a goodly bit of domination -- first in the
lands around Isengard and later in the Shire. Who's to say that
Saruman would have been able to forge an alliance of Men and Orcs
without the (conjectured) powers of his Ring?
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachI know people who call electronic devices that don't
work any longer "bricks".
But calling them bricks doesn't make them so and doesn't change
the fact that they are electrical devices: they are just out of
order for some reason that may or may not have anything to do with
the electrical part.
And even if the electrical parts are out of order, the batteries may
still be fully powered up. And in the extreme end, a small child may
well take a powerful battery and put it in e.g. a wind-up toy car --
the battery won't make any difference, because the car doesn't run on
electricity, but the electrical power will nonetheless still be there
(whether that makes it an electrical car is a different question).
Don't you just love to play with these images ;-)
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandThe whole point of ring-making and ring-lore in this context is POWER
Yes. And Saruman doesn't have any left (save his voice).
At the time we meet him in the novel.
Is there any evidence that Saruman lacked any of his powers before he
was imprisoned in Orthanc by Gandalf and the Ents? I have already
argued that he _never_ had the power to do more than he did against
the attack of the Ents, so his lack of action in this respect is not,
IMO, evidence that his power had been reduced since arriving in
Middle-earth.
<snipping further discussion relying on the assumption that Saruman's
impotence against the ents imply a loss of power since his arrival in
Middle-earth>
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachPost by WelandDoes that make Saruman then a non-magical being?
If you ask my personal opinion if I would call something
"non-magical" that was magical before, but lost this ability,
then the answer is "yes".
If Saruman had really lost all his power, then the correct
description of his state would be 'a mere spirit of malice that gnaws
itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape.' But
since there is never any question that Saruman retains also the power
of his voice, he never becomes, as you say, 'a non-magical being'.
Post by WelandPost by Dirk ThierbachIf your point is "Sarumans ring was in intention magical, of
whatever flavour" then I agree. If your point is "the intention
is the only relevant piece of information, so if it was in
intention magical, even if it was a complete failure, then
*everyone* must count it as magical" then I disagree.
I think it would be much more interesting to discuss to which extent
it _was_ magic?
For such a discussion I think we might try to consider several
questions.
Did the ring in some way encapsulate magical power? This is not the
same as asking if the ring could _do_ anything -- the power could be
there without any way to draw upon it (like the battery in the wind-
up toy car above, or the Morgoth element in any ordinary piece of
gold. Here I obviously mean whether it stores any power in addition
to the naturally occurring Morgoth element.
Did the ring in any way enhance Saruman's 'magic' potency? Tolkien
describes (in one of the letters, IIRC) magic as a more immediate
link between the will and the realization of the will, so my question
could be rephrased to ask whether the ring in any way made it easier
for Saruman to get his will done?
The last point might also lead on to an interesting discussion of how
we should understand Tolkien's use of and opposition against 'the
Machine' (which included the use of magic)? It appears to me that one
aspect of the Machine could be that Tolkien was opposed to taking
short-cuts to making our will effective in the real world: the
implication could be that he felt that the natural manner of making
our will effective includes some filtering -- when we have to heave
down the tree with an axe or cut it with a hand-saw, we're more
likely to stop and consider whether we _really_ need it to be felled,
but if we use a chain-saw the tree will be down before we have time
for second (and possibly better) thoughts.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler.
- Albert Einstein