Alice Mead
Member
This may be venturing too far into areas of the text we haven't reached yet, in which case, feel free to repost it in the General area.
I had never thought about it before but Ijust realized that Sauron may never actually know that the "Baggins" he heard about from Gollum and the "Baggins" the Nazgul chased through Eriador are not the same person. Initially, this seems irrelevant. He knows a Baggins has the ring, so what does it matter if he understands the minutiae of hobbit genealogy or not? In Suaron's case, this may be functionally true. If the same can be said of Saruman, however, then it is highly relevant, as it would indicate that Saruman has no specific knowledge of how or why hobbits are related to his own downfall (remember, he never hears about the Uruk Hai capture of Merry and PIppin cause Eomer doesn't leave any survivors). Thus, the Scarring of the Shire is an even more purely malicious act than one might initially assume it to be. The argument for or against Saruman's knowledge of Bilbo and Frodo's specific identities is much more complicated than it is for Sauron, however. First of all, to get it out of the way, even if Saruman knows I'm confident Sauron doesn't, because I cannot imagine him sitting through a Palantir session where in Professor Curunir outlines the Baggins family tree for him.
Now, on to Saruman's personal knowledge. We know that none of the wise other than Gandalf "went in for hobbit lore" but we also know that, fairly soon after Frodo's departure, if not before, Saruman begins receiving large shipments of Old Toby and Lotho begins his rise to robber baronhood. On the one hand, I can't imagine someone as arrogant as Saruman tolerating much small talk from his minions. On the other hand, given that his middleman is Lotho, and the major shift begins just after Lotho finally achieves his life long dream of acquiring Bag End, which he is able to do specifiically because Frodo just left, it seems highly plausible that he might have said something to Sharky about this.
Where do you fall on this?
I had never thought about it before but Ijust realized that Sauron may never actually know that the "Baggins" he heard about from Gollum and the "Baggins" the Nazgul chased through Eriador are not the same person. Initially, this seems irrelevant. He knows a Baggins has the ring, so what does it matter if he understands the minutiae of hobbit genealogy or not? In Suaron's case, this may be functionally true. If the same can be said of Saruman, however, then it is highly relevant, as it would indicate that Saruman has no specific knowledge of how or why hobbits are related to his own downfall (remember, he never hears about the Uruk Hai capture of Merry and PIppin cause Eomer doesn't leave any survivors). Thus, the Scarring of the Shire is an even more purely malicious act than one might initially assume it to be. The argument for or against Saruman's knowledge of Bilbo and Frodo's specific identities is much more complicated than it is for Sauron, however. First of all, to get it out of the way, even if Saruman knows I'm confident Sauron doesn't, because I cannot imagine him sitting through a Palantir session where in Professor Curunir outlines the Baggins family tree for him.
Now, on to Saruman's personal knowledge. We know that none of the wise other than Gandalf "went in for hobbit lore" but we also know that, fairly soon after Frodo's departure, if not before, Saruman begins receiving large shipments of Old Toby and Lotho begins his rise to robber baronhood. On the one hand, I can't imagine someone as arrogant as Saruman tolerating much small talk from his minions. On the other hand, given that his middleman is Lotho, and the major shift begins just after Lotho finally achieves his life long dream of acquiring Bag End, which he is able to do specifiically because Frodo just left, it seems highly plausible that he might have said something to Sharky about this.
Where do you fall on this?
