Posted: September 20, 1999 at 10:58:33: by Dave C-Q
:
: : And the reason why the Istari were required not to reveal themselves fully appears to be that it would have undermined their mission. They could have become objects of reverence and veneration, and they would have been like lords opposing another lord, and not merely counsellors to Elves and Men, whom the Valar hoped would oppose Sauron of their own free will.: That's an interesing point. : And could you extrapolate that and say Saruman was misusing his powers *because* he set himself up as lord. (and Sauron even more so)? I don't think they were forbidden to set themselves up as lords. One of the reasons that Gandalf gives Saruman the chance to repent is that Saruman was still powerful, "even reckoned merely as a lord and captain." [paraphrase of Gandalf] I assume this means that Saruman's lordship of Isengard could have been used for good purposes (pretty obvious). Each of the Istari were sent to aid the West in any way they could. It turned out that Gandalf's strategy was the most (only?) effective one. But if the ring hadn't been found, who knows if it would have worked so well. Probably not, IMHO. Who can say that Saruman's strategy wouldn't have been a good and proper one. The other of the Wise certainly didn't think it strange or unseemly. Maybe the strategy indicated something on a certain level, but it was not one doomed to lead Saruman into corruption or directly indicative of his future fall, in my view. Had Saruman stayed true, he would have been a mighty ally and a powerful counter to the might of Sauron (and yet still in the event, useless without the destruction of the ring). Dave C-Q
| 
