Q: Who Were the Seven Kings Saruman Mentioned?
ANSWER: In June 2018 I received the following thoughtful question:
After Gandalf offers to allow Saurman to go free if he surrenders the Key of Orthanc and his staff and Saurman in a rage accuses Gandelf of trying to rule Middle Earth by collecting the Keys of Barad-Dur, and the crowns of the seven kings and the staffs of the five wizards, I always wondered which seven crowns was Saurman referring to? We know who the five wizards are from the Essay on the Istari in Unfinished Tales. We do not know who the seven kings are.
I guess the Crown of Gondor is definitely one of them. In Arnor they use a Sceptre to represent royalty so that would not count I guess (unless their is also a crown that is never mentioned). The Crown of King Thranduil is probably also one of the seven. The Crown of the King under the Lonely Mountain of Erabor if most likely another crown. Galadriel and Celeborn were Lord and Lady so there was no crown they wore as far as I know. Cirdan was also not a King either but the Lord of the Falathrim and then the Lord of Balar and then the Lord of Harlindon and eventually the Lord of Mithlond but nothing ever states that he wore a crown. King Theoden definitely wore a crown so that is also one of the seven crowns. Elrond also while the ruler of Rivendell definitely did not wear a crown and was not a King (though I guess you could have a long discussion on why not, considering he was the last surviving relative of the royal house of Finwe and entitled to be king once Gil-Galad died).
The most I get is 4 crowns. Tolkien is usually very specific with his words and if he mentioned seven crowns, he probably had seven kings in mind, not just Lords.
So who do you think Tolkien was referring to when Saurman said Gandalf wanted the crowns of the seven kings?
Well, honestly, I’ve always thought he meant the “crowns of the seven Dwarf kings”. But that’s probably not what J.R.R. Tolkien had in mind. Here is the passage from The Lord of the Rings:
Saruman’s face grew livid, twisted with rage, and a red light was kindled in his eyes. He laughed wildly. ‘Later!’ he cried, and his voice rose to a scream. ‘Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now. A modest plan. Hardly one in which my help is needed! I have other things to do. Do not be a fool. If you wish to treat with me, while you have a chance, go away, and come back when you are sober! And leave behind these cut-throats and small rag-tag that dangle at your tail! Good day!’ He turned and left the balcony.
Saruman doesn’t actually say “the seven kings”. He only says “the crowns of seven kings”.
I’m not sure how this translates into other languages but in mainstream English it’s very indefinite. It could be any seven kings’ crowns, and not necessarily all of them “good” kings from the Free Peoples of the West.
I think Tolkien used “seven” in this sentence because it’s a familiar count for highly symbolic things. Think of the “Seven Cities of Cibola”, “the seven deadly sins”, the seven continents, the seven wonders of the (ancient) world, the seventh seal, and so forth.
Whereas those examples speak of specific things, Saruman’s remark appears to be more figurative. I don’t remember why I first concluded he must be referring to the seven kings of the Dwarven peoples. Obviously by the time you finish reading The Lord of the Rings, especially the appendices, you should have a clear understanding of how many Dwarven realms there are (or were). But Tolkien doesn’t say if there were actually seven reigning Dwarf kings at the time of the War of the Ring.
That’s a somewhat subtle point. I think, however, when coupled with Saruman’s inspecific language (the omission of a definitive article) the best interpretation for this passage is that virtually any seven crowns would do. Saruman was implying that Gandalf wanted to set himself above the native rulers of Middle-earth, which given what we know about the mission of the Istari is a very clear and deliberate charge of treason.
In other words, Saruman was attempting to rhetorically turn the tables on Gandalf by implying that it was he, Gandalf, who was stepping beyond the boundaries set by the Valar. Of course, it’s obvious to the reader at this point that Saruman has gone out of his way to ally himself with Sauron and to become master of human and Orc tribes.
What is not obvious to the reader (up to this point in the narrative) is the Valar’s prohibition against the Istari’s creating lordships for themselves. Technically Saruman didn’t do that. He was given command of Isengard by a Steward of Gondor. If anyone had a legal right to reprimand or remove Saruman, it was Denethor (still the Ruling Steward of Gondor). I think Tolkien implies in this passage that Saruman was making a legalistic play, calling Gandalf’s bluff as it were, since Gandalf had no authority from Gondor to discharge one of its wardens.
What Saruman didn’t realize was that Ilúvatar had given Gandalf all the authority he needed to deal with Saruman. Gandalf proved that when he summoned Saruman back to him and Saruman could not resist.
‘Come back, Saruman!’ said Gandalf in a commanding voice. To the amazement of the others, Saruman turned again. and as if dragged against his will, he came slowly back to the iron rail, leaning on it, breathing hard. His face was lined and shrunken. His hand clutched his heavy black staff like a claw.
Saruman’s legalistic ploy immediately fell apart under this revelation. Had he really been protected by Gondor’s law against Gandalf’s judgment then Gandalf would not have commanded his return (nor would Saruman have been compelled to turn back to him).
The movie combines this passage with the death of Saruman in “The Scouring of the Shire”. Wormtongue kills Saruman by stabbing him in the back in both versions of the story, so Peter Jackson’s interpretation remains generally faithful to Tolkien’s intention for the characters. But because all of Saruman’s petty mischief is omitted from the movies’ audiences don’t realize just how far Saruman has fallen – nor what his fall has cost him.
Saruman didn’t just rebel. He lost his way so utterly he was blind to the changes in Gandalf and Gandalf’s position within the ranks of the Istari. Gandalf told his friends he had been sent back with greater power and authority. The scene where Gandalf casts Saruman out of the order illustrates that better than any other scene in the book. The movie barely captures the significance of Gandalf’s commanding action.
In one fell stroke Tolkien showed readers (who would have to wait to put all the pieces of the puzzle together) that a higher power was indeed at work. Denethor was the highest-ranking political leader in the West. He had the greatest army, the largest civilization, and he still exercised the authority of Elendil. Even Elrond wasn’t acting as Gil-galad’s successor. So Saruman’s contempt isn’t merely foolish, it’s deeply seated in thousands of years of law, tradition, and military power. By any lesser measure he was well within his rights to ignore Gandalf’s demands.
Which brings me back to the “seven crowns” reference. There is another passage in the book that, I think, illustrates just how contemptuous Saruman was of Gandalf’s authority. Faramir tells Frodo and Sam how a young Boromir asked their father when a Steward could become a King:
‘And this I remember of Boromir as a boy, when we together learned the tale of our sires and the history of our city, that always it displeased him that his father was not king. “How many hundreds of years needs it to make a steward a king, if the king returns not? ” he asked. “Few years, maybe, in other places of less royalty,” my father answered. “In Gondor ten thousand years would not suffice.” Alas! poor Boromir. Does that not tell you something of him?’
I think it also tells us something about Saruman’s “sevan crowns”. They were insignificant crowns to him because even though he had already betrayed Gondor by attacking its closest ally and providing assistance to Sauron’s forces, he was still attempting to hide behind the Steward’s authority. He believed he stood above all the other realms of Middle-earth both by virtue of his own nature and because he was a vassal of Gondor, Middle-earth’s most ancient and mightiest kingdom, Sauron’s realm in Mordor notwithstanding.
# # #
Have you read our other Tolkien and Middle-earth Questions and Answers articles?
Funny, I had just reviewed this passage on Sunday while discussing textual matters with my 27-year-old, and had noticed (for the first time) that “seven kings” did not seem to be a reference to a particular Seven (no Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone). However, in all these years, I’ve never imagined to which seven he referred.
I’ll add just one more typographical clue to this, which in combination with the absence of an article (whether the indefinite “a” or the definite “the”) makes your argument all the more convincing; “seven kings” is in lower-case. Tolkien and his editors were very good about using upper-case to indicate proper nouns. I can even imagine the typographer asking whether “seven kings” ought to have been capitalized. So, since the manuscript has been picked over so many times over the past 60-some years, I’ll assume there’s a reason for the lower-case.
My take on the passage is that Saruman was accusing Gandalf of imperial ambitions, “seven crowns” implying the conquest of seven kingdoms (pick a kingdom, any kingdom). The weight of that accusation is more than adequately explained in the article.
Does every king possess a crown? No, but along with orbs and scepters it’s certainly one of the most common symbols of royal authority. A defeated general would ceremonially surrender his sword, a defeated king would surrender his crown.
As to the use of seven? Hollywood certainly understands; The Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven, The Seventh Seal, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers… and all those Westerns featuring the Seventh Cavalry.
But as long as we’re touching on Wizards… A king might command a general to “Bring me the crown of my enemy,” just as the Wizard of Oz demanded the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West.
Hmmm… Was Oz one of the missing Blue Wizards?
I am not certain that Saruman was still perceived as holding Isengard as a Warden of the Stewards. It states in the Tale of Years that after the last White Council he “took Isengard as his own”, which seems pretty definitive to me. If that is the case, then wouldn’t that mean that he has either breached the ban on the Wizards holding dominions, or at the very least completely unable of using Gondor’s patronage as a shield. I think the passage discussed in the main article refers more to Gandalf’s “usurpation” of his own position as leader of the White Council and the Wizards
I think you make a good point. Saruman’s actions prior to that conversation in Isengard would have undermined any attempt to assert his supposed rights under the laws of Gondor.
But a legalistic argument need not be made on the basis of reality. He had no legal right to call Isengard his own.
Also, the “Tale of Years” is supposedly based on material written by Hobbits or Gondorian scholars years after the events in the story. It may not necessarily represent “in story” fact as perceived by the other participants in the conversation at the time. For example, Aragorn had no legal right to assert his authority over Isengard (yet), even though he claimed the Palantir for his own. But the situation with the Palantir was, I think, different. It was a gift to his family prior to the founding of Gondor, not something made by the power of Gondor such as an outpost like Isengard.
The “fall” of Saruman is one of the most interesting elements of the plot for me: he only really becomes truly irredeemable once he’s already lost, his reasons for falling are reasonable (if not Good or moral), and he loses basically because he forgets that a (or The) Highest Power is writing the script. While Gandalf and even Sauron (to a degree) react pretty well to changing circumstances – the obvious being the finding of the Ring and the realisation that the other also knows about it – he’s the last of the big hitters to find out and so can’t catch up
Were there not seven principal Valar? Did Manwe wear a crown in Valinor? Perhaps Sauruman was referring to each of the main Valar of Valinor. He was full of rage so perhaps he was just metaphorically speaking. Maybe there were seven Maiar destined to become kings in MiddleEarth eventually?