# The Death of Saruman



## Thorondor_ (May 16, 2005)

Remember the death of Saruman? As be left his body, he turned towards west, but a cold wind blew from there and he dissappeared. I think this is an indication that spirits can literally die..

<Split from another thread in The Silmarillion forum -- _Ithrynluin_>


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 16, 2005)

I don't think spirits can actually die in Tolkien's world, but I cannot offer any quotes to back that up at the moment. 

I interpret the passage concerning Saruman's death (and there's a similar passage describing Sauron's death) as a plea for immediate redemption, but since Saruman was presented with several occasions to abjure his evil deeds before, and rejected them all, his last desperate appeal was thus also rejected. I've always assumed his spirit was left to roam Middle-earth, powerless to take any action, having time to contemplate his actions as one of the Istari, and suffering because of that, and thus this was his punishment, until finally, after a long period of time, he was summoned back to Aman to receive the judgment of Mandos.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 17, 2005)

Yes, Saruman's case is rather upside-down; usually the elves have the posibility to refuse the summon. Now, it is Valinor/Mandos who refuse the return. Interesting... doesn't any elf have the posibility to return to Mandos, no matter what?

And if so, why isn't this appliable to Saruman?


----------



## Eledhwen (May 18, 2005)

Mandos is a person; so he could have personally refused to take Saruman. Also, there is evidence that the perpetration of evil has a weakening effect on a spirit-being. Melkor was considerably weakened by his life of evil; and Sauron sought to ward against the same fate by transferring much of his own being to the One Ring. Saruman was almost denuded of power by the time Gandalf and Theoden confronted him, and when he was finally killed, it was in such graceless circumstances (especially considering the commission he was given on entering Middle-earth) that Mandos, who must have known him personally, drew up a unique 'purgatory' for him.


----------



## Confusticated (May 19, 2005)

*Re: Melkor's Treatment after the War of Wrath*



Thorondor_ said:


> Yes, Saruman's case is rather upside-down; usually the elves have the posibility to refuse the summon. Now, it is Valinor/Mandos who refuse the return. Interesting... doesn't any elf have the posibility to return to Mandos, no matter what?
> 
> And if so, why isn't this appliable to Saruman?



Well elves as incarnates are in an unnatural state without their body. 
For them it is death. But as an Ainu Saruman was, in a sense, put back into something like his natural state when his body was slain. He would have been weakened of course, or else he could have just put on a new shape and stayed at Bag End. Bodies are normally like clothes to Ainur, but one who had become like an incarnate, being forced out of it might have further weakened his spirit more than his evilness already had.

He may have been trying to take some kind of shape, and that might be why he was just visible but didn't solidify.

I guess I'm just trying to say that it wasn't normal for Mandos to take Ainu spirits and so that might explain why Saruman wasn't called there or allowed there even though he had lived like an incarnate for some time.


----------



## Arvedui (May 19, 2005)

I think that Nóm gives a very good explanation above.

But keep in mind that there is a difference between Saruman and Sauron/Morgoth.
Saruman had a task, and was clad in his body by Manwë, remember:


> For with the consent of Eru they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years.


 From _Unfinished Tales; The Istari._ 

So Saruman did not "die" as such, but his bodily form was slain, and his spirit was not allowed to return to Valinor.

I think...


----------



## Inderjit S (May 19, 2005)

You are right Arvedui. Nobody had the power to "kill" the fea of any creature, Elf, Man or Ainur, apart from Eru, and considering he had never did that it is most probabale that Saruman's spirit fled to the void after being rejected by the Valar.


----------



## Ithrynluin (May 19, 2005)

Inderjit S said:


> You are right Arvedui. Nobody had the power to "kill" the fea of any creature, Elf, Man or Ainur, apart from Eru, and considering he had never did that it is most probabale that Saruman's spirit fled to the void after being rejected by the Valar.



Why do you think Saruman would flee voluntarily into the Void? Wouldn't roaming around Middle-earth (even if purposeless and powerless) represent less of a suffering than confining oneself into the bottomless and utterly empty Void? Or are you going by the _Unfinished Tales; The Istari_ quote that states Saruman never returned to Middle-earth again, whether naked or embodied? Interesting topic to pursue, in any case.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 19, 2005)

I would argue against considering that an evil spirit can leave the boundaries of Ea after the death of his carnal cloath:
- the "gift of humans" makes it specifically clear that only humans have the chance of leaving Ea after death;
- the Valar and Eldars are bound to this world, and they reffer to this fact with sorrow, and they envy humans for having the chance of leaving this world.

So why should an evil spirit have a chance at leaving this world as long as this is a gift even the highest, purest, most powerful spirits can't enjoy? Could evil-doing be a ticket out of this world? I think not. My (non-english) version says the fea of Saruman was anihilated, and I takes this literally, his spirit simply disappeared. 

[The hindu religion acknoledges that a spirit could in fact dissapear (if I remember correctly - if he/she doesn't evolve to God himself, due to attachments, wrong doing evil, dwelling in evil-doing, then, after 102 years of Brahman's life, that spirit disappears).]


----------



## Arvedui (May 20, 2005)

There are other places within Arda where the spirit of Curunír could lie in hiding, as a malevolent shadow, gnawing at itself in self-pity and anger towards Olorin, Manwë, Hobbits and the rest.

As they say in a country that I know of: he resides at an undisclosed location.


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (May 20, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> I interpret the passage concerning Saruman's death (and there's a similar passage describing Sauron's death) as a plea for immediate redemption, but since Saruman was presented with several occasions to abjure his evil deeds before, and rejected them all, his last desperate appeal was thus also rejected. I've always assumed his spirit was left to roam Middle-earth, powerless to take any action, having time to contemplate his actions as one of the Istari, and suffering because of that, and thus this was his punishment, until finally, after a long period of time, he was summoned back to Aman to receive the judgment of Mandos.



I agree, but in a strange sort of way I had the sense with his bodily death Saruman's "spirit" (or whatever it is) is released from its "prison." He reminds me of Darth Vader: he has a mind of metal and wheels, yet there is (perhaps) still some good left within him, of which we catch but a glimpse here.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 20, 2005)

Arvedui said:


> There are other places within Arda where the spirit of Curunír could lie in hiding, as a malevolent shadow, gnawing at itself in self-pity and anger towards Olorin, Manwë, Hobbits and the rest.
> 
> As they say in a country that I know of: he resides at an undisclosed location.


 
You know, it really makes me wonder, what happened to the elves who didn't answer the summon to Mandos? During Melkor's time, they were easily summoned by him; what about during Sauron's time? Or afterwards?


----------



## Arvedui (May 20, 2005)

A note to the _Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth_ states:


> They [the Elves] were given a choice, because Eru did not allow their free will to be taken away. Similarily the houseless _fëar_ were summoned, not brought to Mandos. They could refuse the summons, but this would imply that they were in some way tainted, or they would not wish to refuse the authority of Mandos: refusal had grave consequences, inevitably proceeding from the rebellion against authority.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 20, 2005)

Hm, authority.. The Valar indeed represent the authority of good in Ea.. but they too can be wrong, as it was admited by Tolkien, in the case of the elves coming to Valinor, in the case of the numenoreans, and Melkor being set free. 
And we could expect this authority to be indeed "failable", because the Old King Manwe (at least him) doesn't have the knowledge of evil, his knowledge is imperfect, so even his logic could be faulty..
So, if the authority isn't infailible, and its mistakes can have such grave consequences, why should this authority be so "absolute", and disobeying to it necessarly means one is tainted? 
Because I would agree with an absolute authority which is infailable, but it isn't the case here.


----------



## Confusticated (May 20, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> You know, it really makes me wonder, what happened to the elves who didn't answer the summon to Mandos? During Melkor's time, they were easily summoned by him; what about during Sauron's time? Or afterwards?



To add to what Arvedui provided, there is more information elsewhere in the same book. (HoME 10)

It actually does say that the Avari refuse the summons to Mandos more frequently than the Eldar, but during the time of Morgoth _and_ Sauron they refused it less often. The reason for this was (as you might guess) to flee from the evil. It is also mentioned that some went into the service of evil, because those who refused the summons of Mandos had little power to resist the counter-summons of Morgoth.

In the later Ages, probably after the final defeat of Sauron, even more elves refuse the summons. They are said to wander houseless in the world, unwilling to leave. Some may even turn to evil and might try to possess the bodies of the living. The deceased houseless should not be confused with the elves who have faded, the latter are generally good spirits, and do not seek bodies to possess.


----------



## Confusticated (May 20, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> So, if the authority isn't infailible, and its mistakes can have such grave consequences, why should this authority be so "absolute", and disobeying to it necessarly means one is tainted?



It may not be the refusing itself but the reasons behind the refusal that indicate there is a problem. In this case refusal would be a sign.

If elves refuse because they are not willing to give up life, and try to hang on to it as a spirit (which is the unnatural state for incarnates) this could indicate that they have a problem. This seems similar to the way that Men's fear of death is. Their fear of death actually brings about a shadow that shortens their life. The men in a higher more enlightened and wise state are the ones who are able to give up life willingly instead of try to hold on forever.

In the text I mentioned in the above post it also says that staying in Mandos but being unwilling to return to life again is held to be a weakness of the spirit. This is blamed on the Shadow upon Arda, which darkened some spirits. So in this case we have elves who are not refusing any summons but are still a sign of the taint. 

It could simply be because without Melkor's corruption, elves would always seek to go to Mandos, wait for a while and heal, then go back to their natural state which is life. Summons refusers do not even give the waiting a try.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 20, 2005)

"In the later Ages, probably after the final defeat of Sauron, even more elves refuse the summons. They are said to wander houseless in the world, unwilling to leave. Some may even turn to evil and might try to possess the bodies of the living. The deceased houseless should not be confused with the elves who have faded, the latter are generally good spirits, and do not seek bodies to possess."

Are Melkor and Sauron the only ones able to counter-summon eldar spirits? And was this counter-summoning(/dominance over eldar spirits) possible only during their reign?

"It could simply be because without Melkor's corruption, elves would always seek to go to Mandos, wait for a while and heal, then go back to their natural state which is life. Summons refusers do not even give the waiting a try."

- Valar can be held responsible for unleashing Melkor upon the world;
- the reason for the unleash was their lack of foresight;
- when judging (about) evil, maybe even a human is more adept and could take wiser decisions.

So why bow to someone who is less wise than you? And who, through this imperfection, made the world a very bad place to live in. And aren't the decision of the Valar, (besides their potential lack of foresight) also implacable? Isn't there a question of imorality when accepting any gift (even the gift of life) from someone who can weild so much power with (what could be called) iresponsability? (even if this iresponsability isn't valar's fault, Eru made them this way...)


----------



## Alatar (May 20, 2005)

So why would elves allow themselves to the judement of the valar?...?
Well there mistake with melko was pity. Genrally i would like being judged my people who had allready released ther most evil thing in the world(Imagine the gates of heven letting hitler, stalin... and all the other evil dictators anf mass murders in?).

Oh and the last people to rebel for...
Men they got a mountain put on top of them.
Elves they went into a fruitless war killing thosands.


Or go to Morgoth whatever.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 20, 2005)

"So why would elves allow themselves to the judement of the valar?"
If I remember correctly, it is said that the gift of free will was primarily a human feature - and due to this, humans (only) can build their destinies.

"Well there mistake with melko was pity. Genrally i would like being judged my people who had allready released ther most evil thing in the world(Imagine the gates of heven letting hitler, stalin... and all the other evil dictators anf mass murders in?)"
The big mistake was not letting evil access heaven, but letting evil have another chance at destroying Arda. 

"Elves they went into a fruitless war killing thosands."
That doesn't mean they weren't doing Eru's plan.

"Or go to Morgoth whatever"
Well, some say better be a ruler in a village than a slave in a city. If the current power really doesn't deserve to be absolute, the heck with it . But Eru is beyond evil and good, he deserves worship, love, and the desire to unite with Him, *no matter what*.


----------



## Alatar (May 20, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> The big mistake was not letting evil access heaven, but letting evil have another chance at destroying Arda


Good piont, what i realy ment was that they gave evil a another chance.


Thorondor_ said:


> Well, some say better be a ruler in a village than a slave in a city.


Morgoth will make you a slave!!


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 20, 2005)

"what i realy ment was that they gave evil a another chance"
They shouldn't have (you don't put a psycho vala in a room full of Children); and they wouldn't have if their knowledge wasn't so imperfect.


----------



## Confusticated (May 21, 2005)

Thorondor_ said:


> - Valar can be held responsible for unleashing Melkor upon the world;
> - the reason for the unleash was their lack of foresight;
> - when judging (about) evil, maybe even a human is more adept and could take wiser decisions.
> 
> So why bow to someone who is less wise than you? And who, through this imperfection, made the world a very bad place to live in. And aren't the decision of the Valar, (besides their potential lack of foresight) also implacable? Isn't there a question of imorality when accepting any gift (even the gift of life) from someone who can weild so much power with (what could be called) iresponsability? (even if this iresponsability isn't valar's fault, Eru made them this way...)


It's not a question of bowing to them, or even accepting the inviation for the sake of not disobeying a Vala. It is a matter of taking up an invitation, making use of an opportunity, that is their only means of healing and eventually living again. Failing to do this may be a sign of the taint for this reason, refusal of Vala request aside.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 21, 2005)

"It's not a question of bowing to them"

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I remember that the Valar can delay giving an elf a new body, if they consider he did wrong. And, as Eru made them this way, the Valar judgement could be faulty, at least at certain times. So there is a gamble when accepting the summon. So you kind put (at least a part of) your life in their hands when you go there. It's not necessarly a game of words to say you bow to them then.


----------



## Confusticated (May 23, 2005)

There has been a misunderstanding.

I was not talking about it being wrong or right that it is only the Valar who have authority to give elves' bodies. Until now I have never even questioned it. 
I just ment it is bad when an elf refuses because it means something is wrong with the elf that he no longer desires healing and living, and not because he says no to a Vala.


----------



## Thorondor_ (May 23, 2005)

I certainly do agree that under normal circumstances it is wrong to refuse life or healing. I would disregard life/health only if they are contradictory to morality and not because I am/would be tainted. My question was: "Isn't there a question of imorality when accepting a gift from someone who can weild so much power with iresponsability?" Yes, no, anyone?


----------

