Sauron, Saruman, and their fundamental (dis)similarity.

From the pen of Carl Benjamin comes an article on the Scouring of the Shire, here in Islander VI. The main topic of the article will be getting a Creational Story article (as yet unwritten and certain to lag this post by weeks because of how I schedule the websites ahead of time). So instead of focusing on that, I’d like to discuss some side-points, particularly the view of Sauron and Saruman the article expresses.

(MAJOR SPOILERS for The Lord of the Rings)

Benjamin contrasts Sauron and Saruman as respectively “present, elemental, primordial evil, a metaphysical truth, a Chaos God made flesh,” and “abstract, intellectual, rationalistic evil that coerces and imposes little by little, until the entire land is corrupted.” No points for guessing which is which.

I leave aside here some quibbles of metaphysical inaccuracy (that Sauron is not an “elemental… evil” or a “metaphysical truth” or a “Chaos God,” being a personal being once righteous and now fallen, of immense power, and at least directly opposed to ‘chaos’ (possibly unlike Morgoth in this last point, though I can’t finger a quote to that effect off the top of my head, as he always struck me as more destruction-oriented than Sauron)). I’d rather deal with the problem in the contrast overall: it presents as a difference of kind what is in fact a difference of circumstance and opportunity. The evils of these two foes are not fundamentally different, taken overall. Fundamentally, they are the same evil, differently developed and decorated, in different stages.

The true contrasts between Sauron and Saruman, as they are relevant here, are in competence, maturity of effect, and rationale.

Competence

Sauron is supremely skillful. He rules with an iron fist, directing the logistics of a vast web of empire and influence, sending agents across the world in force requiring significant effort of the Free Peoples to inconvenience. His fatal error is not of ability but of character; he simply does not account for so complete an abstention from power as he is faced with, and even this mistake he must be persistently directed towards by Aragorn and his compatriots.

Saruman, meanwhile, is playing catch-up and not doing exceptionally well. He has a narrow window before he becomes merely a pawn of Sauron, instead of a respected lieutenant, and in trying to exploit that window he stretches beyond his capacity. His military efforts are impressive but flawed, deeply flawed, flaws that allow Rohan to hold out long enough for the unexpected to ruin Saruman. Not to say that Saruman is not dangerous or skillful- in infiltration (via Wormtongue) and in speech, in manipulation, in deception, he is second perhaps only to one (Annatar, aka Sauron, who manipulates Numinor as Saruman would do with the Shire, who manipulates Denethor as Saruman would do with Theoden). He’s just not Sauron’s equal across the board.

Maturity of Effect

Here I cover multiple angles.

First, Sauron operates from a deep logistical and historical base Saruman lacks. Sauron’s efforts are more straightforward and less fully reliant on infiltrating enemy leadership than Saruman’s simply because Sauron has more armies. But Sauron still assails Denethor (and Aragorn); he still procures a pawn in the enemy’s rear (Saruman).

Second, the disparity in Sauron’s and Saruman’s rule is not reflective of a fundamental difference in goal. Saruman wishes to order the world properly, according to his wishes, according to his “mind of metal and wheels” (TT, Bk. 3, Ch. 4), and this also is Sauron’s goal: “He strove ever for the dominion of Middle-earth, to become a king over all kings and as a god unto Men” (Akallabeth). Sauron also wants to establish order according to his own designs, as we see in his creation and imposition of the Black Speech (LotR, Appendix F).

Sauron, however, has stepped beyond Saruman in scale and success. Whereas Saruman has only begun to waste the Shire, Sauron has nigh-completed the waste of Mordor; all that is left is the machinery necessary to his empire: the road, the encampments, the fortifications, and the great slave-tended fields in the south (which we never see through characters). Saruman is headed there; Sauron is already there.

And where are they both headed in the end? We see it in Sharky: to a final determination that all shall be annihilated, if it cannot be ordered, that order consists in annihilation. Sauron, I think, stands for order, as up until the point of his end, he still hopes for victory; Morgoth (though again I have not been able to find my proof for this) stands for annihilation or at least for destruction, having determined that complete negation of what is not his is the only acceptable order.

Saruman has not matured into Sauron, yet. He has not achieved Sauron’s success; he has not discovered what lies past the first steps. But we see those first steps, and we see him rapidly taking the next. Saruman represents not a different type of evil from Sauron but the immature, neotonous stage, the youth of Sauron’s evil. Eventually, the order Saruman imposes, being his order, will become Sauron’s order, more blatant and less insinuating. Indeed, that is nearly what Saruman tells himself when he proposes to Gandalf to become Sauron’s vassals or his replacement.

Rationale

Unlike Sauron (so far as we know), Saruman still tells himself, at the beginning, that what he does is for the best. He tells Gandalf, “But we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see” (FR, Bk. 2, Ch. 2). Saruman seeks to convince others (and himself) that he acts for good, that his order is the right order. Sauron is unlikely to harbor any such delusion.

Saruman, however, is only deluding himself. He is not a fundamentally different sort of evil; his order and Sauron’s order are not truly different, in the end. In his final days, a beggar on the road and a Sharky in Bag End, he is reduced to malice and destructiveness. He no longer presents himself as a savior, except as a means of deception; he is simply imposing his desires on others. He has uncovered the Sauron of his character, a change in honesty, not in nature.

Evil

In this world (and thus in excellent fiction), evil is unitary (James 2:8). All evil fundamentally is a descent towards a single point- absolute negation of good- and thus as evil progresses, it loses its individuality, becomes ever more colorless. Long erosion of character does not produce unique evils; it produces flavors and colors of a singular evil, with different competencies and tendencies but truly similar essences. Saruman and Sauron reflect just such a relationship; the farther Saruman goes along, the more he reflects Sauron (another master manipulator, as Annatar). The path of vibrancy, distinction, and individuality is righteousness, wherein each person’s nature is preserved insofar as it is not merely absence, brought to an individual fullness of excellence, not to a common doldrum of negation.

God bless.