LotR -- Book 3 - Chapter 05 - The White Rider

[Boromir88]

This post is directed mostly to Fordhim, and mostly at Boromir (mutters of "What a surprise ").

This is an interesting ‘final word’ on Boromir, isn’t it? Here we have Galadriel and Gandalf both effectively weighing in on the tricky topic of Boromir and rather unambiguously stating that he “escaped” his peril in the end – he did in fact die in honour, as Aragorn said, and not as a slave to the Ring or himself.

Nice point, and of course, I agree. But what is it that actually makes Boromir die in honor, and not as a slave to the Ring? Here are some interesting finds....

One of my favorite quotes ever, in a book, comes from Heroes, byRobert Cormier. When the man who is a hometown hero, as well as a war hero, rapes a highschool girl, he says "Does one sin of mine wipe out all the good things I have done?"

I just felt like posting that because I love the quote. Now onto the question of "How is it that Boromir retains his honor?" A quick run down of the closing events....

Boromir tries to take the ring (an act of sin)
He realizes he's wrong, and rushes to defend the hobbits
In defending the hobbits, he sacrifices himself and is slain
He confesses his wrong to Aragorn, who in a way blesses him. "You have conquered!"

People are quick to jump that this is an example of Christianity, well not necessarily. It's almost to christianity (not quite), but in fact, resembles more the Norman/Anglo-Saxon theology...

It follows the Anglo-Saxon/Norman law of Compensation.

Compensation meaning, that because you have broken the law, by injuring or killing, you must compensate for those sins. Now Boromir didn't break the law, but he broke his oath to help Frodo, and did try to harm him. Now in order for his salvation he must compensate for these sins. In Anglo-Saxon culture there are two ways you can do this...

One, you must pay lots of money, and confess your crimes publicly.

Or...

You must forfeit your own life, but on top of that...you must confess your crimes, and then do an act of love to "make up" for those you have hurt (Frodo). This happens to Boromir...

He commits a crime
He sacrifices his life
He confesses to his sins
His act of love is defending Merry and Pippin.

Aragorn, the priest figure, declares that he has conquered, and "fully compensated" himself for his crimes.

To give a modern day situation, since this we can tie into our Justice System. If you break into someone's house and steals valuables. Then are caught, and found guilty in court. You first must confess/apologize for your crimes. Then there are various ways to compensate yourself, or sacrifices yourself. Whether this is jail time, community service, or payment of the valuables...etc. Until the court decides that you have been "fully compensated" for your crimes, hence the Laws of Compensation.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I've perhaps always just taken Gandalf at his word when he says that he is no longer Gandalf the Grey -- i.e. he truly is a new person or being: Gandalf the White is Saruman as he was meant to be. Given that he is literally a new person, it would make sense that he has forgotten much that was close to Gandalf the Grey, who died in Moria.

I'll go back to my bizarre 'hidden third' person: Gandalf the White is neither Gandalf the Grey nor Saruman the White, nor is he an 'amalgam' of the two or the 'synthesis' of them. He is the resolution of the differences between these two figures with the creation of a new being.

Hmmmmmm. . .

[Tuor of Gondolin]

A few quotes from "Letters" which seem relevant to some above Gandalf
observations:

I think the way in which Gandaldf's return is presented is a defect, and one other critic, as much under the spell as yourself [Tolkien letter is addressed to Robert Murray, S.J.] curiously used the same expression: 'cheating'. That is partly due to the ever-present compulsions of narrative technique. He must return at that point, and such explanations of his survival as are explicitly set out must be given there-but the narrative is urgent, and must not be held up for elaborate discussions involving the whole 'mythological' setting.....Gandalf really 'died', and was changed: for that seems to me to be the only really cheating, to represent anything that can be called 'death' as making no difference. 'I am Gandalf the White, who has returned from death'. Probably he should have said to Worrmtongue: ' I have not passed through death (not 'fire and flood').....the return of Gandalf is as presented in this book a 'defect' and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend.

("letters" # 156)

Gandalf alone [of the wizards] fully passes the test, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgment). For in his condition it was for him a sacrifice to perish on the Bridge in defence of his companions, less perhaps then for a mortal Man or Hobbit, since he had a far greater inner power than they; but also more, since it was a humbling and abnegation of himself in conformity to 'the Rules: for all he could know at the moment he was the only person who could direct the resistance to Sauron successfully, and all his mission was in vain. He was handing over to the Authority that ordained the Rules, and giving up all personal hope of success. That I should say is what the Authority wished, as a set-off to Saruman. The 'wizards', as such, had failed; or if you like: the crisis had become too grave and needed an enhancement of power. So Gandalf sacrificed himself, was accepted, and enhanced, and returned. 'Yes, that was the name. I was Gandalf.' Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy, but both his wisdom and power are much greater.....He was sent by a mere prudent plan of the angelic Valar or governors; but Authority had taken up the plan and enlarged it, at the moment of its failure.

("Letters", # 156)

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Esty

I wonder if Gandalf was now allowed to take on spirit form for instant transportation?

I would say that the restrictions still largely applied, just as they originally applied to Saruman - who he is, in effect, replacing. He still seems to remain bound by them for the remainder of the book. Perhaps they were "relaxed" slightly, but I think that it is more that, as Gandalf the White, he had a greater reserve of "innate" power with which to fulfil his mission within the preordained strictures.

Originally Posted by Nilp

What is it with Aragorn that he had been willing to die (and thus abandoning his claim to kingship, plus leaving his promise to Boromir unfulfilled) for Merry and Pippin?

I rather thought that Gimli's comment had been an example of grim humour and that neither he nor Aragorn really expected to starve if they pursued the Hobbits' trail into the depths of Fangorn. But it does show that, having made a commitment to find Merry and Pippin, he feels duty bound to follow it. Just as he could not leave them to their fate back at Parth Galen (when the same considerations were in play), he cannot do so now. Although he knows that they are free from the Orcs they are still in peril as far as he is concerned. It is only when he learns of their safety from Gandalf that he feels able to abandon the chase.

Originally Posted by Child

I am reading Aragorn's decision as strictly a question of morals. Time and again, Tolkien makes the point that we must focus on the immediate problem at hand and make a judgment according to what is right or wrong in that situation, even if long range considerations would seem to suggest otherwise.

I take the point that, like Gandalf, he lays his own interests aside and trusts to a higher power so that he is able to address the problem at hand. Although I wonder how applicable that lesson is in reality? Time and time again, it seems to me, governments, companies and individuals fall into error when they make short-term decisions to address immediate issues, rather than taking the longer term view. The difference here, I suppose, is that the "short-term" solutions taken by Gandalf and Aragorn are not in their own interests, but rather run contrary to them. They are, as Child and Fordim have said, making a personal sacrifice rather than furthering their interests.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In this connection, I have always thought that the answer to The Saucepan Man's question ... is simply that they are "close at hand" and Gandalf literally cannot at first recall them.

Originally Posted by Child

I, too, was left with the impression that Gandalf quote honestly could not remember many things closest to him, and inadvertently gave the impression that he was attempting to "disguise" himself. Quite the opposite was the case. Being so close to the mysterious and other-worldly transformation that had taken place 'beyond' Arda, he did not have the guile to think in terms of something so mundane as "disguise".

No, I didn't really suppose that Gandalf was deliberately springing a surprise on them. But the passage still seems strange to me. Some of his features may have been visible, but they were still hooded and those that were visible were hidden under his brows. Since the Three Hunters recognise him almost immediately when he casts of his grey rags and hood, I would surmise that he was unrecognisable up to that point. And, deliberately so, it would seem. Why else would he wear grey rags and a hood?

As for the way in which he addresses them as strangers, my initial reaction, too, was that he could not recall them (just as he could not, at first recall the name Gandalf). But this does not square with him making straight for them. Why would he purposefully make towards them, up a narrow stone stair in a cliff face, if he did not know who they were? Indeed, he seems to have been following them through Fangorn. He knows, before meeting with them, that they have been tracking two small hobbits, whom he knows to be Merry and Pippin. Indeed, the whole of his speech concerning Merry and Pippin, before he reveals himself, seems to have a deliberately mysterious air about it.

Perhaps your explanation is the correct one. It certainly seems to be the only logical one which does not involve some intention to mislead on Gandalf's part. But it still does not sit entirely easily with me.

[davem]

Why didn't they recognise the 'resurrected' Gandalf? I suppose there could be some reference to the appearance of the risen Jesus to some of his followers on the road to Emaus in Luke:

'And beholde, two of them went that same daye to a toune, whych was from Jerusalem about thre scoore forlonges, called Emaus, and they talked togedder of all thinges which had happened, And it chaunsed, as they commened togedder, and reasoned, that Jesus hymsilfe drue neare, and went with them. Bur their eyes were holden, that they coulde not knowe hym...

And it cam to passe as he sate at meate wyth them, he toke breed and blessed yt, and brake ytt and gave it unto them. And their eyes were openned. And they knewe hym.

Maybe the eyes' of the 'Three Hunters' were 'holden' in the same way.....

[The Saucepan Man]

Indeed, davem. The similarity there is striking. But why were the eyes of the Three Hunters "holden"? It serves only to precipitate their attack upon Gandalf (apart, of course, from the literary device of heightening the tension).

[Aiwendil]

Fordim wrote:

I've perhaps always just taken Gandalf at his word when he says that he is no longer Gandalf the Grey -- i.e. he truly is a new person or being: Gandalf the White is Saruman as he was meant to be. Given that he is literally a new person, it would make sense that he has forgotten much that was close to Gandalf the Grey, who died in Moria.

Now this is an interesting point. What does it mean to say that Gandalf the White is a "new person"? An entirely new person, as distinct from Gandalf the Grey as is Aragorn or Frodo? Surely not. He is called by the same name, he has the memories of Gandalf the Grey (even if here they are at first distant or difficult to access), and he largely acts like Gandalf the Grey. But if not a wholly distinct person, then what?

To put it another way, surely the spirit, the eala, of Gandalf the White is the same entity as that of Gandalf the Grey. If so, then it seems to me that the changes seen in his character after his death and return should be viewed in the same way that we view ordinary character development. He has had certain extraordinary experiences, and they have changed him in certain ways - just as Frodo, for example, undergoes a much slower process of change over the course of the novel.