Quote:
Originally Posted by Inziladun
That to me is a good argument for Saruman's ring being of little or no account. Also, the Council of Elrond heard Gandalf mention it, yet it isn't brought up again.
When Gandalf confronts Saruman at Isengard later, the ring again is of no significance. Gandalf was only concerned with Saruman's staff. ...
|
The ring is not brought up, but that does not mean it was not significant.
Saruman's staff was symbolic of his status withing the
Council of the Wise. To break the saff was to let everyone know his wisdom was no longer to be trusted. His ring would be another matter. We do not know how Saruman would have been effected by the loss of it. Sauron's loss of the One to Isildur did not kill him but, being less powerful, maybe Saruman would have died. I do not think Gandalf's purpose at Isengard included taking that risk.
I think Bayard makes a good point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard
... it struck me again how sympathetically Tolkien portrays Morgoth in his desire for something more and his impatience with what might seem to be the complacency of Eru Ilúvatar.
Although in all cases things turned out badly, there is sympathy (and sometimes even admiration) for the rebels.
|
Gandalf's sympathy, like Tolkien's, extended to Gollum (whether his part in the fate of the One was for good or for ill), so it would be inconsistant for him not to leave Saruman an oportunity for redemption. After all, Gandalf had a point to prove to Saruman; that he did not want the crowns of the kings and the rods of the Wizards. He did what he had to do but was wise enough not to get carried away by revenge. Leaving him with his ring could have been a way of saying; look, I am breaking your power but not utterly crushing you.
.