The Unfair Fate of Saruman

[Nikkolas]

We might remember this one fellow by the name of Melkor.

The progenitor of Evil itself in Arda; the being responsible for ruining some of the greatest creations and efforts of his brothers and sisters.

The Result:
Chain him up for a while, he says he's sorry, and all is forgiven.

Saruman? He made a tiny orc army, killed an inconsequential amount of humans, and...uh...that's about it. Oh, tortured some hobbits.

The Result:
BANISH HIM FOREVER FROM THE BLESSED REALM!

We must also look to their drastically different circumstances. Melkor descended into Arda specifically to rule it and to ruin everyone else's life.

Saruman? In many ways his Fall is as much to do with his Vala-imposed limits as his own faults. The task he and the other Istari had been set was pretty much impossible. I think Saruman, being a rather intelligent fellow, realized this. In many ways, his desperation for the One Ring was a reaction to his belief that there was absolutely no other way to defeat Sauron.

What do you all think? Do you agree Saruman got an overly harsh punishment? Essentially, does the punishment fit the crime?

[blantyr]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Would his return improve the value of real estate in the Blessed Lands?

[Nerwen]

So basically the early, misguided leniency of the Valar towards Melkor means nobody should ever be judged or punished again, no matter what? Just so their policy can be consistent?

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

Saruman? In many ways his Fall is as much to do with his Vala-imposed limits as his own faults. The task he and the other Istari had been set was pretty much impossible. I think Saruman, being a rather intelligent fellow, realized this. In many ways, his desperation for the One Ring was a reaction to his belief that there was absolutely no other way to defeat Sauron.

The Istari were certainly capable of error. Radagast could be said to have "fallen" in a sense, in that he neglected the primary mission in favor of blissfully communing with nature.

I think Saruman's larger sin was his failure to take advantage of the opportunity for repentance the Valar, through Gandalf, offered him after his army was shattered.
Instead of seeing his folly for what it was and accepting that he must turn his back on personal ambition and work for the good of Middle-earth, he let pride master him, and even went to the Shire personally to do what he could to spoil the Ring-bearer's homecoming in a spirit of petty meanness.
To indicate his true disconnection with the West, he tried to kill Frodo after being offered forgiveness and mercy by him! After so many unheeded chances to show remorse and humility, that final act was the last straw for Saruman as far as his superiors were concerned.

[Morthoron]

Sauron was given the same godly gust of wind from the West. It's an ill wind as blows nobody no good, as I always says.

Besides, Morgoth was shut up beyond the doors of night. No cable TV for eternity.

[mhagain]

You're ignoring a lot of other factors here.

The actual sequence of events was:

1. Melkor stomps around the world being EEEEEVIL.
2. Melkor is chained the first time and imprisoned in Mandos.
3. Melkor is released and does more EEEEEVIL.
4. Melkor is chained the second time and is CAST OUT FROM THE FRICKIN' WORLD!
5. Saruman does some bad stuff too.
6. Saruman is denied return to the Blessed Realm.

So, the OP is written as though the events numbered (3) and (4) here did not exist. Melkor's treatment the first time round was lenient for the following reason (quoted from the Silmarillion):

For Manwë was free from evil and could not comprehend it, and he knew that in the beginning, in the thought of Ilúvatar, Melkor had been even as he; and he saw not to the depths of Melkor’s heart, and did not perceive that all love had departed from him for ever.

The second time round, however, the Valar were not taking any of his sh1t. They'd already made their mistake in being lenient and they'd already seen the consequences of that. So it's off with his feet and out into the void for the remainder of eternity for him.

By that yardstick Saruman's fate wasn't unfair; he actually got off fairly light.

[Andsigil]

Originally Posted by Nikkolas

We might remember this one fellow by the name of Melkor.

The progenitor of Evil itself in Arda; the being responsible for ruining some of the greatest creations and efforts of his brothers and sisters.

The Result:
Chain him up for a while, he says he's sorry, and all is forgiven.

Saruman? He made a tiny orc army, killed an inconsequential amount of humans, and...uh...that's about it. Oh, tortured some hobbits.

The Result:
BANISH HIM FOREVER FROM THE BLESSED REALM!

The Valar learned from their earlier mistakes with Melkor and punished Saruman accordingly.

Too bad that he didn't learn from Melkor's example. "Curunir", indeed...

[Galadriel55]

I don't think evil should be measured by the scope of creatures affected by the deed. Leave that to statistics. Morals should deal with principle. Therefore the fact that Saruman "only" hurt a "small" amount of people doesn't make the hurting any less evil than Morgoth's much larger campaigns.

[Alfirin]

It's a long shot but it is also possible we actually underestimate the "evil" Saruman actually did. Between Mandos, Vaire and Illuvitar himself, it is possible the Tolkinien cosmology contains the concept of predestination/knowledge of the future, and that, in cases of the "judgement" of a soul, thier deeds were accounted with this is a factor. In other words, one might be judge not only on any evil acts you did yourself, but any evils that resulted from those deeds; including those occuring long after one was born.
To consider this in terms of Saruman specifically. Let us consider what his "sins" were. Turning from his mission of course, but, as noted, Radagast seems to have turned from his as well and, (as far as we know) the Valar did not punish him with such severity (whether or not Radagast ever returned to Aman, we don't hear anything about, say, the Valar sending a message to any straggling elves to track Radagast down and execute him for "abandoning" his mission, or Gwahir being told to ambush him carry him over jagged mountains, and drop him). He wants to claim the ring, but Isildur actually DID claim the ring, and as far as we can tell, his death, while certainly abrupt, does not seem so far outside of the normal purview of ends of men to require the hand of the Valar to intervene.
But then we get to Saruman's tendency towards technology and mechanization. In and of themselves, tecnology is not neccecarily considered a bad thing in ME cosmology (if it was, Aule would have to be accounted among the bad guys). But choosing tech OVER nature clearly is. And that is what Saruman seemed to do, building great engines of war, doing (or at least encoruaging) crossbreeding of orc and man on a massive scale, engaging in wholesale deforestation, and generally taking the concept of, for lack of a better term "souless science" to prominence. Under Tolkein's rather pro-bucolic view, pretty serious crimes in and of themsevles. But more importantly, since ME is, within the context of the story, supposed to be OUR OWN early history, and, in our own world, the mentaility of Industrialization over nature and science over faith are so prevalent, to the point of nearly being dominant, one could argue that Saruman, as such a strong proponent of these thing, and as an encourager of them in man's mind, could be responsible, and deserve punishment for, setting humanity on that path. Like a Tolkenian Prometheus, or the Serpent of Eden his sin is not merely giving man fire against the will of the Gods, or talking them into going agaisnt divine will, but giving them "knowledge" that turns them from the path of true wisdom. By Valar/Tolkien standards, that could be a sin of near cosmic levels.

[mhagain]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

But then we get to Saruman's tendency towards technology and mechanization. In and of themselves, tecnology is not neccecarily considered a bad thing in ME cosmology (if it was, Aule would have to be accounted among the bad guys). But choosing tech OVER nature clearly is.

It's interesting that you note this, because Saruman was originally a Maia of Aule, as was Sauron, and Aule did step over the line in creating the Dwarves.

There's also this:

Then Manwe and Yavanna parted for that time, and Yavanna returned to Aule; and he was in his smithy, pouring molten metal into a mould. 'Eru is bountiful,' she said. 'Now let thy children beware! For there shall walk a power in the forests whose wrath they will arouse at their peril.'

'Nonetheless they will have need of wood,' said Aule, and he went on with his smith-work.

Aule is ever the pragmatist, recognising that nature is there to be used, but the key difference is where he says:

they shall use all that they find in Arda: though not, by the purpose of Eru, without respect or without gratitude

Likelihood is that Saruman would have known Sauron personally before the latter turned to Melkor; they may even have worked on projects together during the initial work in Arda. A possible reason for Saruman/Curumo's choosing is that someone with this kind of knowledge of Sauron might be well-positioned to oppose him.

Aule does get a raw deal with his Maiar though, doesn't he? If I were one I'd be worried: "I'm next to be the evil guy, aren't I?"

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by mhagain

It's interesting that you note this, because Saruman was originally a Maia of Aule, as was Sauron, and Aule did step over the line in creating the Dwarves.

That returns to the idea of repentance being a saving quality though.
When Aulë was confronted with his error, he was immediately contrite, and despite his love for the Dwarves, was ready to destroy them.
Ilúvatar made note of that genuine act of remorse, and not only forgave Aulë, but allotted the Dwarves a place in the Music.
Saruman could have avoided his fate if he'd been able to let go of pride and admit his wrongdoing.

[Mithalwen]

The Istari's task was not pretty much impossible, it was hard but posaible aince it was achieved by Gandalf who was originally perceived as lesser in power. The Valar didn't send them to fail and Saruman refused chances to repent in life.

[Nikkolas]

Fact: No one could willingly throw the One Ring in Mt. Doom.

it was sheer dumb lack/the Will of Eru/Plot Contrivance that allowed Frodo to complete his task.

Other than that, the armies of Sauron utterly eclipsed the remaining Men, Dwarves and Elves of Middle-earth. So the Istari's task, to "guide" the Free Peoples in opposing Sauron, was indeed hopeless because absolutely none of them could hope to prevail against him by force of arms.

So, destroying the Ring was logically impossible, challenging Sauron with armies was impossible....

If you are a general and it is your duty to defeat the enemy, do you put all your hope in chance? Would you trust or follow a guy who's strategy is "well, we can't really do anything but pray they succeed"?

I wouldn't and I don't think Saruman would either. He'd much rather put his hopes in something a bit more substantial.

[Alfirin]

You could also argue Gandalf himself "failed" at his task initially, since he died before the intended goal (eliminating Sauron) was achieved. I took direct divine intervention (sending him back) and some tweaking (sending him back far more powerful than he had been) to allow him to "finish the job".

And the situation for the people was even bleaker than you stated. It wasn't so much "Wait and pray they succeed" it was "Sacrifice yourselves and everyone else you care about in regular battles you have no hope of winning; and allow all you have to be destroyed in the vague one in a million chance that they succeed in a mission that logically they have no chance of." "Better to die free than live a slave" sounds nice on a banner, but in practical terms, it's a hard thing to convince anyone but an utter fanatic to practice (especially when "dying free" will most likely mean "dying in manners to agonizing to contemplate, or even being placed in a state where the enemy makes it so that you can't die and are tortured for eternity for their amusement.") Few will "Walk into Hell for a Heavenly Cause" if they know there is no chance of walking out again, or that their walking in will keep others they care about from being dragged in.) To most men, Gandalf would have seemed crazy, or as Denethor saw him, as big a threat as Sauron himself with regards to keeping themselves in one piece.

[Zigûr]

The whole point of the Wizards was to give counsel to the inhabitants of Middle-earth and guide them towards victory, not to lead them against Sauron. The Wizards were not "generals." Saruman tried to make himself one when he should have been turning his efforts towards aiding Men and Elves. Gandalf ended up having to do the duty of at least three Wizards on his own. Perhaps in different circumstances they might have managed a more organised defence against Sauron. Besides, when the Wizards were sent, Sauron's military strength was not nearly as great as it was at the end of the Third Age, insofar as he could be considered to have military strength at all rather than manipulating various factions on diverse campaigns. Similarly I don't think the impossibility of destroying the Ring was well-understood. Why would Gandalf have bothered with the attack on the Morannon otherwise? Hoping for a miracle, perhaps. That was the belief of which Saruman had become incapable. But as a rule I don't think that, prior to its identification, the Ring actually figured especially substantially in the policies of the Wise towards Sauron in any event. They believed, perhaps erroneously in the end, that some form of victory was possible. I would argue that if the essential role of the Ring had been understood earlier things would have been different. Elrond and Círdan might have been more insistent with Isildur, perhaps.

Saruman betrayed his mission and betrayed the Valar. He refused numerous offers of redemption. He was incapable of admitting that he was wrong and that his faithlessness was ultimately revealed to be unjustified. What place was there for him in the West after that? Would he have even wanted to return if permitted?

I would argue, perhaps, that Sauron played the Valar very well indeed over the course of the Second and Third Ages, forcing them into an apparent stalemate such that their efforts probably did seem hopeless. He had reckoned, however, without Eru.

[Morthoron]

*in a sudden moment of seriousness, the Dark Elf elucidates*

Saruman, like Sauron, was given a chance to repent, although in different ages and under different circumstances. That they eschewed the chance for penitence and judgment before their superiors marked them for oblivion; whereas, Boromir was absolved by asking forgiveness at his death (and thus the "fundamental Catholicity" of Tolkien).

This chance for forgiveness and redemption is a notable theme throughout Tolkien's work. Even Morgoth frittered away a chance at redemption earlier on.

[Ivriniel]

The Uruk Hai, a blended race, to mirror what Melkor did to the Elves (debate about Tolkien's refinement of this area aside later in his life). That's pretty perverse. On the verge of making new Rings. I.e. from hero Istari to replicator of the greatest of evils in Arda's history.

Those two deeds, imo, place Saruman as serioulsy at odds with the Valar, and in an irredemable place.

[Lotrelf]

Yes, Saruman had an unfair fate, so did Melkor, and Sauron as well. All evils have "unfair" fate. They deserve pity, not sympathy. Valar did not know the evil in Melkor's heart initially, but later he did suffer greatly (that I'm sure he did, and you cannot ignore that). Saruman was given various chances of redemption and repentance and he chose do more and evil. Once I'd read an article/ thread where a person had made list of 7 people who resisted the Ring-- and Saruman was no 7th position, I still struggle to see why he would at 7th position. (can someone clarify this? Why is was okay to put Saruman in the list of those who resisted the Ring?).

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

(can someone clarify this? Why is was okay to put Saruman in the list of those who resisted the Ring?).

Do you mean this article?
https://www.eviscerati.org/articles/...ng-Rather-Well
I can't "clarify" it because that would mean agreeing with what the author has said. His reasoning is based on false premises.

And since we know from some of the things Gandalf says that he was instrumental in the assault that drove Sauron/The Necromancer out of his fortress in Mirkwood, we can assume he was still working for the Good Guys at that point, and he had been studying the One Ring long before that.

Saruman delayed the Council from attacking Dol Guldur for a long time because he was hoping the Ring would reveal itself. When he finally relented it was because he was becoming concerned that Sauron would find the Ring before he did. He did not have positive motives for the attack, and had actually been making motions towards becoming a "Power" in Middle-earth for some time, albeit in secret.

He is lowest on the list because he never actually comes into contact with the ring and is corrupted by it anyway--and, also, he gets points deducted because he's really an incredible jerk--but he still gets a nod because as far as I can tell he was studying the ring and being seduced by it for an incredibly long time before he finally gave in.

I don't see how he even qualifies for inclusion, then. He can hardly be said to have "resisted" the One Ring just because he was aware that it existed and studied Ring-lore. Although I daresay they did not to the same extent, you might as well include Elrond or even Denethor on the list for almost the same reasons.
Saruman never came into the presence of the One Ring in his entire life. I think his inclusion here is just an effort on the part of the author of this article to be surprising, in addition to writing based on incomplete knowledge. He also writes

"Galadriel scores higher on the list than Gandalf because she is actually put in the position of being offered the ring directly, so she is tempted directly."

Wrong again. Frodo offered Gandalf the Ring as well:
"You are wise and powerful. Will you not take the Ring?"
I suppose it's just the author's opinion but Sam only bore the Ring for a day, more or less. Frodo carried it almost all the way to Mordor and didn't succumb until the very end. Also Boromir only "resists" the Ring after Frodo's put it on and run away. He still tried to take it, unlike Galadriel or Gandalf, who were mightier than him (albeit more wise, but I won't get back into that discussion again...) and arguably had greater need of it.

My point is, I think this article's argument that Saruman "resisted" the Ring is nonsensical. He never encountered it personally, and he fell anyway!

[Lotrelf]

Yes, that was the article I was talking about. I didn't say you have to agree with it, 'cause I didn't agree with that too, and most people wouldn't as well. I agree with EVERYTHING you have said. Saruman never encountered the Ring, that's why there's no logic of him being in the list at all. Whatever the excuses are given by the author do not justify his (Saruman's) evil deeds. And thus his "resistance" makes on sense to me.
Also, the list, to me, seems more about "who gave up the Ring willingly" than "who resisted it."
On a side note, didn't Galadriel let herself be tempted unlike Gandalf? She let herself be tempted and resisted, something that Gandalf didn't do (because he never needed it, and I think she needed to do so in order to be accepted in Valinor). Whatever the reason is, that does not make Gandalf inferior to Galadriel.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

On a side note, didn't Galadriel let herself be tempted unlike Gandalf? She let herself be tempted and resisted, something that Gandalf didn't do (because he never needed it, and I think she needed to do so in order to be accepted in Valinor). Whatever the reason is, that does not make Gandalf inferior to Galadriel.

Galadriel's desire for power to resist Sauron and preserve the beauty of Lothlórien was her temptation, and an obvious one. But I don't think it can be said that Gandalf had never felt the pull of the Ring. When Frodo offers him the Ring (as he later does Galadriel), Gandalf's response seems no less considered than does Galadriel's.

'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly. Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself, Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good.'

FOTR The Shadow of the Past

Compare that with Galadriel's rejection of the Ring.

'You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night!....Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!'

FOTR The Mirror of Galadriel

If Gandalf had not been tempted, I do not think his reaction to Frodo would have been so near to Galadriel's words.

[Lotrelf]

Gandalf's reaction was same as Galadriel, and he feels the pull as well, but I don't think he is really as tempted as Galadriel. Because he does not let himself do it. Someone who comes in the contact of the Ring, and goes unaffected must be someone of the "mightiest will" and the mightiest will is of Eru. My point is, Galadriel actually feels the pull, and probably more than Gandalf. This does not mean Gandalf hasn't resisted it, but Gandalf was not as tempted, or he was not in such circumstances.
The case with Galadriel is that she allows herself to do so(because she has reasons, and being the Wise, I don't think, she'd give in too easily), while Gandalf doesn't.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

Someone who comes in the contact of the Ring, and goes unaffected must be someone of the "mightiest will" and the mightiest will is of Eru.

What about Bombadil?

Originally Posted by Lotrelf

My point is, Galadriel actually feels the pull, and probably more than Gandalf. This does not mean Gandalf hasn't resisted it, but Gandalf was not as tempted, or he was not in such circumstances.

I'm not sure if Galadriel or Gandalf was more tempted, but it's worth considering what Gandalf says immediately after what Inzil quoted above:

"Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me."

I think the line "I shall have such need of it" is particularly telling. Gandalf could, seemingly, foresee to some extent trials in his future (the circumstances of his death, perhaps?) where using the Ring could spare him suffering and exertion. In some ways I would argue that Gandalf might be more tempted than Galadriel - but is a bit more subdued about it.

[Lotrelf]

Originally Posted by Zig�0‹4r

What about Bombadil?

Wasn't he an exception who could even disappear the Ring?

I'm not sure if Galadriel or Gandalf was more tempted, but it's worth considering what Gandalf says immediately after what Inzil quoted above:

"Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me."

I think the line "I shall have such need of it" is particularly telling. Gandalf could, seemingly, foresee to some extent trials in his future (the circumstances of his death, perhaps?) where using the Ring could spare him suffering and exertion. In some ways I would argue that Gandalf might be more tempted than Galadriel - but is a bit more subdued about it.

I think that's the matter of opinion. We don't know who was more tempted or who needed it more. Gandalf resisted, but Galadriel "allowed" herself to be tempted. They both needed the Ring(or Power) and they both had motives of their own, they could have taken the Ring without resisting it. They both resisted. Who "needed" it more, you can't forget Frodo for that matter. Like Gandalf he needed the power too, to end the evil. He resisted as well. So did Gandalf. But Galadriel felt its power more than Gandalf.

Wait! Wasn't Gandalf around the Ring longer than her???

[Ivriniel]

Galadriel was tempted. Gandalf was tempted. Elrond, no doubt also. Certainly, Saruman was tempted, though he had no direct contact with the Ring. I'm not sure direct proximity was necessary for that kind of temptation, sometimes.

Isildur and Boromir were both tempted and succumbed to the Ring's call. It wouldn't have been long for Isildur, I've always imagined, until bad things started happening. He was warned at Orodruin about the Ring.

I'm not sure that ranking needs, wants, temptation and capacity for resisting the Ring is achievable, or easily achievable. There were qualitative imperatives rather than quantitative ones bearing upon the Ring's influence. Galadriel, a realm and love of Light of Aman in a realm she could oversee. Gandalf, a Maia who had no real territorial imperatives bearing upon his feelings for the Ring (the citation upstream notes 'pity' was the way to his temptation) for labours dark ahead. Galadriel's was overlordship and preservation or her realm.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Ivriniel

Galadriel was tempted. Gandalf was tempted. Elrond, no doubt also. Certainly, Saruman was tempted, though he had no direct contact with the Ring. I'm not sure direct proximity was necessary for that kind of temptation, sometimes.

It is self-evident that Saruman was tempted to seize the Ring, since he in fact tried to do so. The question is whether he can meaningfully be said to have "resisted" the Ring earlier in his career, before the opportunity to claim it had presented itself. Actually, it seems to me there's a sort of sleight-of-hand involved: the author admits Saruman never got near the Ring, then (I suppose) uses this to argue that, since just *thinking* about the darn thing could corrupt him, he deserves Brownie points for ever having thought about it without *immediately* turning evil. Something like that, anyway.