[Formendacil]

I should like to say that the Jury agrees that both the prosecution and the defence present convincing arguments, and in regard to the matter of Gandalf's speech, the jury is at a loss to say who is definitively in the right.

The spokesman agrees with Masters Istarion and Davem, that the style used by Tolkien serves the greater narrative purpose of providing the information needed to inform the members of the council- and the reader- about the dangers and backstory of Saruman, while also recounting his experience.

While the speaker enjoys the confrontation between Saruman and Gandalf (taken alone, and not as a narrative within the story), and personally felt no disruption of the enchantment, he must admit, as does all the jury, that Master L.M. Poet has a point.

While explicable by devious means of the translator conceit, or arguments concerning Gandalf's greatly versatile abilities, the jury concedes that this passage is more in accord with the broad narrative, as told by the narrator, than with words of Gandalf as spoken at most times previous.

For the moment, the jury remains undecided. I, personally, would like to say that perhaps Tolkien, like the jury, was in a stalemate position: unable to remain consistent one way, unable to properly further the story the other. Perhaps it was choosing the lesser of the two evils, the one more easily forgiven?

And, as an aside, how does this great exposition of Gandalf's compare with his other great revealing speeches in "A Shadow of the Past"?