Who was the old man?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

One should not rule out a possibility unless it can be proved impossible!

Agreed. But one also should not consider something to be probable just because it is possible.

And given your statement, I would posit that the old man is actually Fengel. Possible? But of course. Prove that it's not him while I get ready to add another possibility to the list.

Originally Posted by alatar

Agreed. But one also should not consider something to be probable just because it is possible.

And given your statement, I would posit that the old man is actually Fengel. Possible? But of course. Prove that it's not him while I get ready to add another possibility to the list.

There is more evidence from the text to support the view that the Old Man in some shape or form was Saruman, of course. My view is that it was a spirit of Saruman, rather than the physical form. The text does, to some extent, support this view, in the eyes of Gimli at least.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

There is more evidence from the text to support the view that the Old Man in some shape or form was Saruman, of course.

Not really. The Three see an old man. If they knew it were Saruman, they would have stated thus. The old man looked like Gandalf, and as the Grey One was a wizard, they assumed that this old man may have been Saruman as (1) they were near to Saruman's abode, (2) they'd been chasing the band of the White Hand for days, and so had White Wizard on the noggin, and (3) didn't know of every possible character alive (or possible) in Middle Earth at that time from which to choose. The number of old men known to Gimli and Legolas must have been limited, if they knew any at all, and as Lindir says in Rivendell:

"To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different," laughed Lindir. "Or to shepherds. But Mortals have not been our study. We have other business."

...meaning that these two could, like Elrond regarding hobbits, have no clue regarding the variations in old male humans and/or those that appear thus.

Had they known it to be Saruman, they would not have asked Gandalf (which they too confused as possibly just some old man) who it may have been. Even Gandalf does not know with any certainty, as he says something like, 'then I guess you must have seen Saruman.' Maybe this creature that they saw is a one-shot, much like Bombadil but with much less documentation.

Of course I'm just arguing the other side.

My view is that it was a spirit of Saruman, rather than the physical form. The text does, to some extent, support this view, in the eyes of Gimli at least.

Again, interesting. I would like to read that evidence, if you have time or could point me in the right direction.

Originally Posted by alatar

Again, interesting. I would like to read that evidence, if you have time or could point me in the right direction.

That has already been answered in the very first thread post. A phantom = a spirit? Not impossible.

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Tolkien ascertains that Grima poisoned Theoden, and then Wormtongue used his influence on the drugged king to further Saruman's interests in Rohan. I believe you are having yet another movie moment.

If Theoden was poisoned, it could have killed him given his age. And how did Gandalf manage to wear off the poison by his appearance alone in the Golden Hall? Whatever you are ascertaining above, give more detail please. Quote the full text from the source.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Mansun

That has already been answered in the very first thread post. A phantom = a spirit? Not impossible.

Sorry; I'm not willing to make that leap without further evidence. Gimli's remark is not that of an expert. He uses the word phantom as he's not sure how to describe the event otherwise. Later he wants to look for boot prints, which, if he truly believed it was a phantom/spirit/non-corporeal being as you believe, then he wouldn't have thought to do so.

On the other hand, I was reading the FotR chapter, "A Journey in the Dark," where the Fellowship are attacked by those wolf creatures. These are physical creatures, as they are harmed by physical weapons, but disappear at morning's light, and so may be more phantom-like.

This, to me, is some evidence that such things such as phantoms can exist, though it still does not explain Saruman's appearance.

[The Might]

The quote provided by Ibri is in my opinion of great importance, as we see that neither Tolkien nor his son seem to have had a clear idea about what the old man represented, although indeed it does seem to point to a physical presence of Saruman. However, it also shows that a phantom, or a projection of Gandalf are possibilities.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mansun

If Theoden was poisoned, it could have killed him given his age. And how did Gandalf manage to wear off the poison by his appearance alone in the Golden Hall? Whatever you are ascertaining above, give more detail please. Quote the full text from the source.

I will indeed supply you with the text (although I've seen neither hide nor hair of any textual proof I asked you to submit regarding Theoden being 'bewitched' by Saruman's spirit):

Originally Posted by Unfinished Tales, Chapter V The Battles of the Fords of Isen

...But it [Theoden's malady] may well have been induced or increased by subtle poisons, administered by Grima. In any case, Theoden's sense of weakness and dependence on Grima was largely due to the cunning and skill of this evil counsellor's suggestions.

Originally Posted by LotR, 'King of the Golden Hall'

'If this is bewitchment,' said Theoden, 'it seems to me more wholesome than your whisperings. Your leechcraft ere long would have me walking on all fours like a beast.'

As you can see, there is never a direct reference to Saruman regarding Theoden's stuppor (drowsiness, a sure sign one is drugged), and Grima is held responsible for the prolonged and addled dependence of Theoden. In addition, Theoden himself uses the word 'leechcraft', which by definition refers to archaic medicinal practices. In an analogical sense 'honey in the ear' is whispered lies as well as a non-invasive method of introducing poison into the body.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

As you can see, there is never a direct reference to Saruman regarding Theoden's stuppor (drowsiness, a sure sign one is drugged), and Grima is held responsible for the prolonged and addled dependence of Theoden. In addition, Theoden himself uses the word 'leechcraft', which by definition refers to archaic medicinal practices. In an analogical sense 'honey in the ear' is whispered lies as well as a non-invasive method of introducing poison into the body.

Far be it for me to argue with the Professor, but I would think that 'poison' is too strong a word. Drugging need not be poisoning at some dosage, as we acetaminophen users know. Could Grima been 'dosing' Theoden with some type of narcotic that dulled his mind?

But pharmacopeia doesn't seem like Saruman's thing, but more like something Radagast would use. Could it have been more of the psychic drugging, like the mental abuse a torturer uses to break the will of a captive - nothing physical, just relentless words that darken the listener's skies?

If it truly were a physical poison, then how did Gandalf cure such a thing, as we don't see him curing anything, even the Black Breath, later in the Houses of Healing?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by alatar

Far be it for me to argue with the Professor, but I would think that 'poison' is too strong a word. Drugging need not be poisoning at some dosage, as we acetaminophen users know. Could Grima been 'dosing' Theoden with some type of narcotic that dulled his mind?

The word 'poison' is an older word than 'drug' (poison is the Middle French variant of the Latin 'potio' or potion as we know it, whereas drug is derived from the Middle-English 'drogge' and dates to no earlier than the 14th century, but 'poison' can be found in Middle-English texts as early as the 11th century). Knowing Tolkien's penchant for a turn of a word, the use of 'poison' (and he would know it was a derivative of the stem of 'potion') can mean a 'liquid dose', and there is also the metaphoric meaning as in 'to poison one's mind'. Therefore, it would seem that Tolkien would prefer to use the older term and its double meaning, just as Theoden speaks of 'leechcraft' (and the word 'leech' fits Grima nicely, doesn't it?), rather than more modern medical terminology.

Originally Posted by alatar

But pharmacopeia doesn't seem like Saruman's thing, but more like something Radagast would use. Could it have been more of the psychic drugging, like the mental abuse a torturer uses to break the will of a captive - nothing physical, just relentless words that darken the listener's skies?

If it truly were a physical poison, then how did Gandalf cure such a thing, as we don't see him curing anything, even the Black Breath, later in the Houses of Healing?

I have not heard that Radagast was into psychotropics (but, of course, Hobbits were into 'shrooms). It would seem to me that Saruman would indeed engage in developing poisons, or mind-altering drugs, as part of his studies (after all, he was pretty handy with gunpowder, another newfangled innovation). The wording Tolkien uses regarding Grima and poisoning seems to indicate that the original malady Theoden suffered was either 'induced' or 'increased' by Grima's poison or potion, but that the actual prolongation of this malady was due more to Grima's subtle and insidious mind manipulation rather than regular dosing; hence, when Gandalf drags Theoden out into the sunlight, the king was not necessarily under the influence of any mood-modifier, and therefore is able to eventually stand without assistance.

From a strictly deductive standpoint, I don't think any magic or Sarumanic incorporeal manifestations were necessary in debilitating Theoden.