HowthCE
New Member
Hello!
I want to push back a little on the notion that Boromir's argument was a good one. While it may seem logical to use the enemy's weapon against him, we (and Boromir) have already been given the tools to disqualify Boromir's argument within this very council. For starters, Gandalf has already recited the spell engraved on the ring, which begins, "One ring to rule them all." Next, let's consider Saruman's more sinister argument:
"'And why not, Gandalf?"' he whispered. 'Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us ."
Now, let's look at Boromir's speech.
"Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need? Wielding it the Free Lords of the Free may surely defeat the Enemy."
The first part of Boromir's argument is the suggestion that the ring has come to serve the free people. There's some semantic ambiguity here, as one could read into this some volition on the part of the ring. While there is already evidence for the ring's volition, I'm not sure Boromir is aware of it. So, when he says this, the most generous reading is that the phrase "has come into our hands to serve us" is meant in the abstract. Yet, given what we've already learned about The Ring, this semantic ambiguity should be startling. We should ask ourselves, "does the ring serve anybody?" Obviously, we know the ring was made to serve Sauron, but the purpose of the ring is power and/or domination. Service is not in the ring's nature, and certainly not service to those whom it was designed to dominate.
The second part of Boromir's argument echoes Saruman's "us." The "Free Lords" cannot wield it, because they are plural. As Gandalf says to Saruman, "only one hand can wield the one." It may be Boromir is hedging. It may be he realizes he needs these friends, and it would not be politic to say who he thinks should wield it (even less that HE should wield it), but if we accept that these suggestions come from the ring itself, this second ambiguity suggests a sinister motive of disunion.
I see something Miltonic in this whole council (I'm new to these discussions, so please forgive me if this has already come-up). It's not a 1:1 analogy by any means, but there are a lot of echoes here to the demonic debate in Book II of Paradise Lost. One of the most important things for the reader to do, whenever reading a demonic or luciferian speech, is remember that they will always lie. So while the arguments seem to make sense, the attentive reader should be able to see the speciousness of their arguments through the veneer of good sense. If we believe Boromir's arguments may be inspired by The Ring, we should similarly look for lies.
Anyway, this is my first post. I hope you all enjoy. Thanks!
I want to push back a little on the notion that Boromir's argument was a good one. While it may seem logical to use the enemy's weapon against him, we (and Boromir) have already been given the tools to disqualify Boromir's argument within this very council. For starters, Gandalf has already recited the spell engraved on the ring, which begins, "One ring to rule them all." Next, let's consider Saruman's more sinister argument:
"'And why not, Gandalf?"' he whispered. 'Why not? The Ruling Ring? If we could command that, then the Power would pass to us ."
Now, let's look at Boromir's speech.
"Why should we not think that the Great Ring has come into our hands to serve us in the very hour of need? Wielding it the Free Lords of the Free may surely defeat the Enemy."
The first part of Boromir's argument is the suggestion that the ring has come to serve the free people. There's some semantic ambiguity here, as one could read into this some volition on the part of the ring. While there is already evidence for the ring's volition, I'm not sure Boromir is aware of it. So, when he says this, the most generous reading is that the phrase "has come into our hands to serve us" is meant in the abstract. Yet, given what we've already learned about The Ring, this semantic ambiguity should be startling. We should ask ourselves, "does the ring serve anybody?" Obviously, we know the ring was made to serve Sauron, but the purpose of the ring is power and/or domination. Service is not in the ring's nature, and certainly not service to those whom it was designed to dominate.
The second part of Boromir's argument echoes Saruman's "us." The "Free Lords" cannot wield it, because they are plural. As Gandalf says to Saruman, "only one hand can wield the one." It may be Boromir is hedging. It may be he realizes he needs these friends, and it would not be politic to say who he thinks should wield it (even less that HE should wield it), but if we accept that these suggestions come from the ring itself, this second ambiguity suggests a sinister motive of disunion.
I see something Miltonic in this whole council (I'm new to these discussions, so please forgive me if this has already come-up). It's not a 1:1 analogy by any means, but there are a lot of echoes here to the demonic debate in Book II of Paradise Lost. One of the most important things for the reader to do, whenever reading a demonic or luciferian speech, is remember that they will always lie. So while the arguments seem to make sense, the attentive reader should be able to see the speciousness of their arguments through the veneer of good sense. If we believe Boromir's arguments may be inspired by The Ring, we should similarly look for lies.
Anyway, this is my first post. I hope you all enjoy. Thanks!