On integrity

This week is another double portion, where we read "The Road to Isengard" & "Flotsam and Jetsam."  In these chapters, Gandalf and Theoden and everyone else goes to Isengard to confront Saruman, now that his whole army is defeated.  As they enter Isengard, they reunite with Merry and Pippin, and the party splits up - Theoden and Gandalf go on while the Hunters and the Hobbits sat and chat.

In the first chapter, Gandalf announces he is going to Isengard.  Theoden worries they don't have the strength to take it, but Gandalf assures him he has already been defeated and that they "go to a parley, not to a fight."

‘I wish to speak with Saruman, as soon as may be now,’ said Gandalf,
‘and since he has done you great injury, it would be fitting
if you were there. But how soon and how swiftly will you ride?’

"Why does Gandalf say it is fitting?"
"Because Saruman should face the one he has hurt.  Partly to see the results of his actions, and partly so that, if there is an apology, it can go to the aggrieved, and not simply into the ether."
"I find another reason.  So if he does not apologize, Theoden can see it."
"Theoden gets closure either way."
"And nuance.  Does Saruman seem ashamed, but unable to yet apologize?  Is he still proud, and has not yet processed his defeat?  Is he defiant, aware of his loss and yet still spiteful.  Theoden going allows him to witness first hand."
"But why does Gandalf say fitting, and not something more positive, such as just or right?"
"Because the confrontation of the perpetrator by the aggrieved does not necessarily lead to justice."
"But the confrontation of the perpetrator by the aggrieved IS justice, no matter what happens next.  The aggrieved has the initiative, to say what they wish."
"Whatever they wish?"
"The means and the ends must both be justified*, so yes one could say something that makes them the perpetrator of a new grievance.  But that is an error they must be free to make.  One that we know Theoden will not make."
"Wait, so if the confrontation is justice, why does Gandalf merely say fitting?"
"Oh, I guess we completely flubbed the question.  Gandalf is, I think, concerned with the destruction of Sauron.  Saruman is a distraction.  Whether the interaction is just or not, Sauron remains.  It's not really his priority."
"So Gandalf doesn't care about getting justice on the way?"
"Our tradition teaches Gandalf is not a model leader.  Gandalf's motivation here, then, may be to shame Saruman, or to see how he reacts when Theoden, of all people, witness his defeat.  Maybe he hopes, in his rage, he will do something he can use.  But whether out of spite or for real gain, we cannot say."
"And Gandalf is right, though it is Wormtongue who acts in rage - and likely not as a result of Theoden's presence."
"So Gandalf is not right."
"Aah, right.  Well, what can we learn despite this?"

"When harm is done, while we may confront the perpetrator, we should bring the aggrieved along, if they wish it."
"However, as Gandalf correctly states, we should not let them delay us long.  An apology to the ether is better than none at all.  An apology to the aggrieved is good, but an apology soon after the event is better."
"Why is that?"
"Time is unstoppable and will drown everything.  As time chugs along a distance grows, lessening the hurt, the memory of it, and the urgency of repair (because the repair, if delayed, may come from other sources).  However, within the aggrieved, that distance can be prevented, or perhaps returned to.  One can move on from a past wrong, but then when confronted with the perpetrator, recall those bad feelings."
"A quick apology also allows for less strategy.  An apology after a weekend of thought may have more meaning, but it may also have a strategic element.  If I apologize, then X.  But an apology of the moment has less of that.  True, it may have less sincerity behind it, but if someone apologizes for a wrong and is lying, well now they have two wrongs to atone for.  As we said before, it is an error they are free to make."
"An immediate apology, not meant, is obviously better than a later apology which is meant.  What about a later apology or no apology."
"Later."
"But if the confrontation happens and there is no apology, then-"
"Great!  How wonderful a way to keep one's integrity.  I was not sorry when I did not apologize.  With time, I became sorry and apologized.  You can trust me to be honest, even if we disagree on what I ought to do."
"Saurman does not apologize."
"Saruman never apologizes, nor does Wormtongue.  They do keep their integrity, but without goodness integrity isn't worth much.  Honesty is the best policy, but does not necessarily make good policy.  It's good to know who is against you, but that doesn't mean it is good to have opponents.  If we allow others the grace to stand firm, even by letting them say what we disagree with, we can take their agreements, if they ever come, with more authority.  They have not been cowed.  And if we suspect it is a strategically minded agreement or apology, how wonderful their strategy requires our goodwill.  They may seek to trick us, but we can show them our goodwill is worth more in the long run rather than as a quick oil for the wheels of evil."



This had been a patreon-supported project, but that proved too annoying to maintain.  If you would like to financially support this project, drop $1.11 (or any amount, I suppose) into my Venmo!

ChatGPT contributed about 10% to this post's final version.

*I have repeated this a lot, but surprisingly cannot find the first post in which I argued it.  I'll keep looking, but it's an interesting issue to have run into...