XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien
From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid
In message
Sandman spoke these staves:
>
> In article ,
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
[The essay 'The Palantíri' in /Unfinished Tales/]
>> do read note 14 to the essay, which is an authorial comment
>> quite unequivocally stating that Saruman "had himself no
>> /right/ to the Orthanc-stone." (emphasis original).
>>
>> Quite clearly being allowed to take up residence in Orthanc did
>> /not/ transfer deputed authority to Saruman to use the
>> Orthanc-stone.
>
> Which requires that Beren either were aware of the stone and
> explicitly stated that Saruman may not use it while letting him
> keep it.
>
> Or, Beren had forgotten about it, but some old law explicitly
> states that Saruman needed to be authorized to use it by some
> means not implicit in the ways that he was given rule over
> Isengard. In which case it was just forgotten bureaucracy in
> Gondor.
Well, yes, and?
I don't particularly claim that it makes sense or seems reasonable to
me, but it is the way that Tolkien wrote it :)
> All that said, I'm not claiming that Saruman had any "right" to
> use it either way, just that the written law is ancient, and while
> "law" in Middle Earth seems more constant than in the modern
> world, surely ancient means something.
I think we are not even speaking about written law -- this 'law'
seems to have been inherent in the stones themselves, not just
something that had been written down -- these are somehow magically
enforced rules about who the 'rightful' king and delegate might be
(it would doubtlessly have been easier for the Egyptians if
Nefertiti's bust had appeared like a lump of common rock to all by
its rightful owner . . .).
The text of this essay was written as part of Tolkien's preparations
for the 1967 revised second edition of /LotR/ and probably represents
Tolkien's own attempt to understand the /palantíri/ better and
probably some of this is derived in an attempt to explain how Saruman
became so easily ensnared by Sauron to betray the White Council and
any remnant of the mission of the Istari, while Denethor could remain
true to his country (even if he did despair because of what he was
allowed to see).
We may feel that Tolkien's explanation is lacking -- I'd certainly
agree that it doesn't make sense in a real world context -- but on
the other hand we also know that this concept of /right/ is important
in Tolkien's work, and a powerful causative force. Even Sauron gains
advantages through being the rightful ruler of Mordor, so that within
Mordor proper, one cannot wear the One Ring without having to
challenge Sauron for the possession.
It is, IMO, clear that Tolkien felt that the rightful user had to
explicitly depute the authority to use the specific palantír, and if
Beren had forgotten that there'd be a palantír in Orthanc, he would
not have deputed authority to use it to Saruman, who would then not
have that authority.
That such things in Tolkien's work can function across millennia
really shouldn't be surprising to anyone -- just think of the
Hobbits' justification for freely following 'the Rules' -- 'both
ancient and just.' Don't believe for a moment that the order here is
not prioritised: their ancientness is more important for their
authority than their justness. In addition to all the other themes,
Tolkien's work can also be seen as a sustained argument against the
modern idea that the newest is always better (Tolkien quite clearly
despised cultural Darwinism).
With all the above in mind, I do think that Tolkien's explanation
makes good sense within the context of his Middle-earth.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
- Piet Hein, /The Eternal Twins/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
