The Return of the King (was Re: Sword of Shanara- Good?)
Niall McAuley
>Tolkien falls flat in _Return of the King_, in my view. For more than a
>few reasons:
I must disagree (all below is in my humble opinion)
>* the sudden switch to a "heigh stile" involving sentence constructions like
>this: "And Aragorn says: 'I am happy to see thee in bliss.'" It starts
>reading like the bloody _Silmarillion_ (which I like, but the LOTR shouldn't
>resemble it.)
This is an important part of the books structure. From the Hobbits
perspective, they start off on a fairly ordinary journey in a land
they know, and meet a few odd characters, such as Strider.
By the end of the book, they are involved in an epic, Aragorn
is the Heir of Isildur, a hero from a legend. The homey style
of the opening contrasts with this epic style towards the end.
Notice that the Hobbits don't start talking like this, it is
Aragorn who is revealed to have been like this all along,
disguised as a ranger.
>* I _liked_ Denethor, and sympathized with him, flawed as he was. His fear
>that Aragorn would try to supplant him is justified, and in my mind true
Of course, you were supposed to. Denethor was a tragic figure, not
a simply evil one.
>(for I do not believe that blood is thicker than water; just because Aragorn is
>"the heir of Isildur" doesn't necessarily mean anything.)
It does in Middle earth. He lived far beyond the years of normal
men, he was stronger, more noble, wiser and more kingly all round
than anybody else. Believing that he inherited this is part of the
necessary suspension of disbelief.
>* Tolkien effectively "kills off" the only strong female character in the
>LOTR with the possible exception of Galadriel. (Consolation--Celeborn,
>Galadriel's husband, is presented as something of a dolt.)
? Marries her to Faramir, after a brilliant victory in battle ?
I don't get you.
>* In "The Scouring of the Shire", Merry and Pippin march in with swords
>drawn and haughty words, and kick ass in the space of a few pages. Am I
>the only one bothered by this? So might makes right, eh, is that it?
No, this is the closure of the story, the demonstration of the
developement their adventures forced on the Hobbits. Do you
think force was not justified to free the Shire ? I thought
it very clear that the characters were concerned with using
*minimum* force.
>The only redeeming feature of the chapter is the description
>of the death of Saruman.
Well, each to his own. I think that trying to judge the
volumes of LotR against one another is pointless, it is one
book, with a single plot and structure, not a series
with varying styles and formats.
-----
Niall
Generic Account 1175
>In article masc1175.813951308@rohan, masc...@rohan.sdsu.edu (Generic Account 1175) writes:
>>Tolkien falls flat in _Return of the King_, in my view. For more than a
>>few reasons:
>I must disagree (all below is in my humble opinion)
>>* the sudden switch to a "heigh stile" involving sentence constructions like
>>this: "And Aragorn says: 'I am happy to see thee in bliss.'" It starts
>>reading like the bloody _Silmarillion_ (which I like, but the LOTR shouldn't
>>resemble it.)
>This is an important part of the books structure. From the Hobbits
>perspective, they start off on a fairly ordinary journey in a land
>they know, and meet a few odd characters, such as Strider.
>By the end of the book, they are involved in an epic, Aragorn
>is the Heir of Isildur, a hero from a legend. The homey style
>of the opening contrasts with this epic style towards the end.
Hmm. One of the premises of the LOTR is that it is "really" the work of
Bilbo, Frodo, and maybe the other hobbits--i.e. it's taken from "The Red
Book" (am I correct?) Hence, there is an attempt to portray things as
the hobbits would have seen them. Book I is written with great attention
to detail, because that's what the hobbits saw...many of the events in
Book V were not witnessed by any hobbit--thus the information is second-
hand, probably described to them by Aragorn or Legolas or other witnesses.
The worst instances of florid style happen correspond to just these events
that the hobbits could not have witnessed. (Exception--the description of
the battle between Eowyn and the Lord of the Nazgul.) Conclusion--the
authors of the Red Book merely wrote things _as they were described to them_
by others. _They_ embellished things, and the hobbits emulated them.
(Sort of like Sir Paarfi. But I digress.)
(on Aragorn:)
>It does in Middle earth. He lived far beyond the years of normal
>men, he was stronger, more noble, wiser and more kingly all round
>than anybody else. Believing that he inherited this is part of the
>necessary suspension of disbelief.
And usually I can keep it suspended, until I'm finished and start to
dissect :) Certainly Aragorn is a likeable character, and he proved
himself as a worthy leader of Men.
(on Eowyn:)
>? Marries her to Faramir, after a brilliant victory in battle ?
>I don't get you.
She disappears. She capitulates, admits that she was wrong, and prepares
to live out the rest of her days with Faramir. Her fighting days are over.
>>* In "The Scouring of the Shire", Merry and Pippin march in with swords
>>drawn and haughty words, and kick ass in the space of a few pages. Am I
>>the only one bothered by this? So might makes right, eh, is that it?
>No, this is the closure of the story, the demonstration of the
>developement their adventures forced on the Hobbits. Do you
>think force was not justified to free the Shire ? I thought
>it very clear that the characters were concerned with using
>*minimum* force.
That's what troubles me, perhaps--the neat resolution.
Let's see. Frodo & Co. leave Hobbiton late in September, reach Crickhollow
a few days later, and then leave the Shire. They return sometime in October
or November of the following year, and suddenly find that everything's
changed and Saruman's running the show.
It bothers me that the Shire could become corrupted in so short a time.
Consider, also, that Gandalf & Co. pass Saruman (and Wormtongue) on their
way north--so Saruman can't have arrived ahead of the hobbits by more than
a month or two. Lotho was there earlier, of course--it's implied that
Lotho was backed by Saruman, although that backing must have disappeared
after the destruction of Isengard, if not before.
Merry and Pippin "scour" the Shire in the space of two or three days.
Almost from the _instant_ they set foot in the Shire, they take a high
hand, wave their swords, and start issuing orders of their own. (Yes,
orders.) Frodo orders the Shirriffs about and treats them with contempt.
Why? The Shirriffs existed before Lotho was around--the Shire must have
had _some_ law-enforcing agent. They're just doing their job.
Justified? Maybe. But dangerously precipitate. I'm not saying that
Frodo & Co. should have meekly given themselves up; but Tolkien should have
made a greater effort to describe the changes in the Shire and make them
real to us. As it stands, the Revolution starts almost immediately, which
seems ridiculously unlikely. I would have let tension build for a chapter
or two.
>>The only redeeming feature of the chapter is the description
>>of the death of Saruman.
>Well, each to his own. I think that trying to judge the
>volumes of LotR against one another is pointless, it is one
>book, with a single plot and structure, not a series
>with varying styles and formats.
Oh, that's not the point, obviously. Calling the LOTR a "trilogy" is
is badly misleading, I think; I own the illustrated one-volume edition,
so I don't normally think of this-or-that book. But I am a naturally
critical reader, and I dislike inconsistency, even in Tolkien. I also
am suspicious of happy endings. The LOTR for me does _not_ end happily;
Frodo, the main character, is pretty much broken by the end, and can do
nothing but exile himself from Middle-Earth, and the memory of his defeat.
So the attempt to provide an ersatz happy ending--"The Shire was cleaned
up, and 1420 was a good year, and everybody except Frodo lived happily
ever after"--is, well, disappointing.
-et
--
Ernest S. Tomlinson (for the moment, masc...@rohan.sdsu.edu)
(Permanent e-mail address - e...@ugcs.caltech.edu)
"In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North
wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last." - J. R. R. Tolkien
Ken Moore
masc...@rohan.sdsu.edu "Generic Account 1175" writes:
> eei...@eei.ericsson.se (Niall McAuley) writes:
>
> (on Eowyn:)
> >? Marries her to Faramir, after a brilliant victory in battle ?
> >I don't get you.
>
> She disappears. She capitulates, admits that she was wrong, and prepares
> to live out the rest of her days with Faramir. Her fighting days are over.
Some time since I read LoTR completely, but this is my reading of
Eowyn's story:
She falls in love with Aragorn when he first arrives at Meduseld,
Theoden's golden hall. He treats her with courtesy, but no more, and
when she becomes aware that he is betrothed to another, she finds the
means to ride into battle, not caring whether she lives or dies. In
this state she has the courage to face the Nazgul at the siege of
Gondor. She and Faramir are thrown together during the convalescence
from their wounds in the Houses of Healing and, seeing less of Aragorn,
she recovers from her hopeless infatuation.
Other possible reasons for her death wish, presented on pp 901-2 of the
paperback edition (Book 5, Chapter VIII, pp 10-11), are watching
Theoden fall into "a mean and dishonourable dotage", and believing
falsely that her brother Eomer was dead, but Aragorn knows the most
important one: "Few other griefs amid the ill chances of this world have
more bitternes and shame for a man's heart than to behold the love of a
lady so fair and brave that cannot be returned."
Political correctness had not been invented in 1955. Tolkien clearly
indicates that Eowen's warlike behaviour is most unusual for a woman
and gives us its reason. Once she has recovered from her
misconceptions, she is expected to be normal, ie to be a good wife to a
good man.
Have I missed anything?
--
Ken Moore
k...@hpsl.demon.co.uk
Niall McAuley
[various opinions snipped]
>The LOTR for me does _not_ end happily;
>Frodo, the main character, is pretty much broken by the end, and can do
>nothing but exile himself from Middle-Earth, and the memory of his defeat.
>So the attempt to provide an ersatz happy ending--"The Shire was cleaned
>up, and 1420 was a good year, and everybody except Frodo lived happily
>ever after"--is, well, disappointing.
It's not an ersatz happy ending, it is the nature of the Fourth Age.
The Shire and the wider world, become normal, mundane, places for men.
The elves and wizards must leave, diminish, go into the West. Even
Frodo and Bilbo, touched by magic, have no place in the new world.
The successes of Sam, Merry and Pippin in the new world
serve to underline the sacrifices Frodo has made.
The ending is not "happy", it is a link between the ages of elves,
magic and legends, and todays round material planet.
-----
Niall
Ron Gross
>
> In article <masc1175.814032399@rohan>,
> Generic Account 1175 <masc...@rohan.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> >eei...@eei.ericsson.se (Niall McAuley) writes:
some great discussion sniped . . .
> >Merry and Pippin "scour" the Shire in the space of two or three days.
> >Almost from the _instant_ they set foot in the Shire, they take a high
> >hand, wave their swords, and start issuing orders of their own. (Yes,
> >orders.) Frodo orders the Shirriffs about and treats them with contempt.
...
> I'll have to reread to see if I think Frodo was being excessively high-
> handed. I think the idea was that he had both right and tradition on
> his side.
>
> >Justified? Maybe. But dangerously precipitate. I'm not saying that
> >Frodo & Co. should have meekly given themselves up; but Tolkien should have
> >made a greater effort to describe the changes in the Shire and make them
> >real to us. As it stands, the Revolution starts almost immediately, which
> >seems ridiculously unlikely. I would have let tension build for a chapter
> >or two.
>
>
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Sorry to butt in, but as a very recent first time reader of LotR, I find
the comments here good reading. As for Frodo, I don't remember him being
so high handed at this point of the story. If anything, he seemed tired,
and disturbed by what he found. Merry and Pippen were doing most of the
ordering around, in Frodo's name.
As for the pacing, I have to agree that these final chapters are the
least satisfying for me, and seem a tad rushed. But when you consider
that they follow the primary climax of the storyline and mostly go to
resolve the final events of the Third Age, further exposition may have
had an opposite effect and dragged a bit.
The final moments do seem a little down for Frodo, but they are also
quite appropriate given the ending of the Age at hand. I credit Tolkein
with not marrying Frodo off to some fair Hobbit and ending things all
cheery and less bittersweet.
My two or three cents,
-Ron-
Hound of Cullen
(Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <masc1175.814032399@rohan>,
> Generic Account 1175 <masc...@rohan.sdsu.edu> wrote:
[*whap*]
> >Let's see. Frodo & Co. leave Hobbiton late in September, reach Crickhollow
> >a few days later, and then leave the Shire. They return sometime in October
> >or November of the following year, and suddenly find that everything's
> >changed and Saruman's running the show.
> >It bothers me that the Shire could become corrupted in so short a time.
>
> It bothers me that the particular *form* of corruption is so clearly
> modern.
>
If you cast your mind back to _The Hobbit_, when JRRT first introduces
goblins, you'll find that he blames them for quite a few industrial ills.
He clearly associates evil with industrial machinery. For that matter, the
ruin Saruman makes of Isengard (and the greater ruin of Mordor by Sauron)
are caused, in great part, by the wastes of the industry there (foul
machineries and the like). I think there is a precedent for the blight
caused by Saruman in the Shire.
Hound
Generic Account 1175
>Sorry to butt in, but as a very recent first time reader of LotR, I find
>the comments here good reading. As for Frodo, I don't remember him being
>so high handed at this point of the story. If anything, he seemed tired,
>and disturbed by what he found. Merry and Pippen were doing most of the
>ordering around, in Frodo's name.
Ah, you're correct here. (Except that I had a particular sentence in
mind--I guess I'm exposed as a Tolkien addict if I can remember particular
sentences. Frodo & Co. have just been stopped by the Shirriffs, who
read the charges to the hobbits and tell them to come with them; Frodo
then laughs: "I'm doing nothing of the kind! I'm going to...[wherever it
was he was going.]" The leader of the Shirriffs then replied. "OK. But
don't forget I've arrested you." "I won't".)
When I first read the LOTR all the way through, in jr. high school I
think it was (7th grade? I must've been around 11), I liked "The Scouring
of the Shire"--the Bad Guys get theirs, the Shire is restored, and so forth.
Now I think it's one of the weakest chapters in the book :-<
Partially, it's the pacing, but also it's because so much new detail appears
from nowhere. The Cottons (any relation to Joseph Cotten, heh heh...uh,
sorry) suddenly materialize; Hob Whatsisname and Robin the Shirriff appear
from nowhere; Lotho _never_ appears, but lingers offscreen until we finally
learn that he's dead. I'm a firm believer in the principle advanced by
Anton Chekhov that if a gun is used in the third act, it must be shown in
the first act; hence it bothers me that so much of what happened in the
Shire, in that fateful year, should be explained merely in off-the-cuff
exposition.
Well, I've pretty much beaten this topic to death.
Cheers,
Roy Stilling
Lebovitz) wrote:
> In article <zisbo-26109...@pziselberger.bbn.com>,
> Hound of Cullen <zi...@aol.com> wrote:
> >If you cast your mind back to _The Hobbit_, when JRRT first introduces
> >goblins, you'll find that he blames them for quite a few industrial ills.
> >He clearly associates evil with industrial machinery. For that matter, the
> >ruin Saruman makes of Isengard (and the greater ruin of Mordor by Sauron)
> >are caused, in great part, by the wastes of the industry there (foul
> >machineries and the like). I think there is a precedent for the blight
> >caused by Saruman in the Shire.
>
> The anti-industrialism is consistant with the rest of the book, but
> Saruman also imposes a bureacratic state that isn't foreshadowed and
> doesn't fit with the other societies.
>
> Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
But in the prologue to _LotR_, "Concerning Hobbits", Tolkien
specifically characterises the Shire as being non-industrial *and*
non-bureaucratic, e.g. "The only real official in the Shire at this
date was the Mayor of Michel Delving". Conversely, the Orcs holding
Frodo in Cirith Ungol keep referring to higher authorities, "the Big
Bosses", and to clearly defined orders. The "West" however, seems
almost unbelievably unorganised - societies like Rohan and Gondor
appear to be organised on individual bonds of loyalty between the
lords and their subordinates.
I do get the feeling that Tolkien deliberately associated bureacracy
and a more rigidly organised society with "evil" in general, perhaps
as force and order is the only way evil can guarantee loyalty. The
good OTOH offer their loyalty out of their own free-will and so no
more organisation is required. ISTR some of Tolkien's other work (I
think "Leaf by Niggle") also has this theme of bureacracy ("the
Inspector") versus the hero.
With this context in mind, I think "The Scouring of the Shire" does
work, the hobbits fall under the shadow, and one of the consequences
of that is that they rapidly get sucked into an oppressive bureacracy.
Having said that, I find Tolkien's overall idea of governance in his
societies rather weak. The depth of history and mythology of
Middle-Earth is one of LotR's greatest strengths, but the shallowness
of its politics one of its most glaring weaknesses!
Roy Stilling | rp...@stilling.tcp.co.uk | "These are the days of
Winchester, | http://www.tcp.co.uk/~stilling/ | miracle and wonder"
England | | - Paul Simon
Andrew P Carter
: I do get the feeling that Tolkien deliberately associated bureacracy
: and a more rigidly organised society with "evil" in general, perhaps
: as force and order is the only way evil can guarantee loyalty. The
: good OTOH offer their loyalty out of their own free-will and so no
: more organisation is required. ISTR some of Tolkien's other work (I
: think "Leaf by Niggle") also has this theme of bureacracy ("the
: Inspector") versus the hero.
I remember reading something about how LoTR was to some extent
a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
period in which Tolkien wrote.
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew P Carter <acar...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> I remember reading something about how LoTR was to some extent
>a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
>period in which Tolkien wrote.
Keep in mind, however, that while Tolkien wrote most of LotR
during World War II, his attitudes were formed during World War
*One.*
I think it comes down to the difference (which Tolkien discusses
somewhere) between allegory and applicability. You can read LotR
and remark that there's an interesting similarity between A (in
the book) and B (in your life), but that doesn't mean the author
had B in mind when he wrote A.
I could append a discussion of lembas as the Eucharist, but I
have to get back to work, so we'll take it as read.
Dorothy J. Heydt
djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu
University of California
Berkeley
Joseph Askew
> I remember reading something about how LoTR was to some extent
>a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
>period in which Tolkien wrote.
If there is any political commentary in LotR it is about the
USSR not Germany. Remember it was written in the Fifties and
so Fascism was a thing of the past and the fascists were our
new friends. What is more Tolkien comes from the intellectual
background that you would associate with someone who would be
more likely to either sympathise with the fascists pre1939 or
see them as the lesser of two evils. Before you flame this
just remember that the rural arcadia that Tolkien obviously
loved was also the sort of rural arcadia that played such a
big role in Germany fascist mythology. Just more English. I
won't even try to comment on his views on race. He was a right
wing conservative Catholic. Remember that.
Joseph
Dorothy J Heydt
Roy Stilling <rp...@stilling.tcp.co.uk> wrote:
"On 1 Nov 1995 15:56:29 GMT, djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J
"Heydt) wrote:
"
"> I could append a discussion of lembas as the Eucharist, but I
"> have to get back to work, so we'll take it as read.
"
Gosh. (flailing wildly) Maybe the usages of those heretical*
sects who do agapemones with Welch's grape juice???
(*Tolkien would certainly think them so.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew P Carter <acar...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> And Elrond's the Pope? Oops...Tolkien's british, that would
>be the Archbishop of Canterbury :)
There probably still is a Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, in
parallel with the better-known Anglican one. I can't, however quite
equate Elrond with either the Archbp or the Pope. Applicability
will only go so far....
Nancy Lebovitz
Roy Stilling <rp...@stilling.tcp.co.uk> wrote:
>On 29 Oct 1995 23:08:25 -0500, nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy
>Lebovitz) wrote:
>
>> The anti-industrialism is consistant with the rest of the book, but
>> Saruman also imposes a bureacratic state that isn't foreshadowed and
>> doesn't fit with the other societies.
>>
>specifically characterises the Shire as being non-industrial *and*
>non-bureaucratic, e.g. "The only real official in the Shire at this
>date was the Mayor of Michel Delving". Conversely, the Orcs holding
>Frodo in Cirith Ungol keep referring to higher authorities, "the Big
>Bosses", and to clearly defined orders. The "West" however, seems
>almost unbelievably unorganised - societies like Rohan and Gondor
>appear to be organised on individual bonds of loyalty between the
>lords and their subordinates.
The orcs have a hierarchy, but there's no evidence of a bureaucracy--
that is, there's no evidence that I can recall of rules (as distinct
from orders).
>
>I do get the feeling that Tolkien deliberately associated bureacracy
>and a more rigidly organised society with "evil" in general, perhaps
>as force and order is the only way evil can guarantee loyalty. The
>good OTOH offer their loyalty out of their own free-will and so no
>more organisation is required. ISTR some of Tolkien's other work (I
>think "Leaf by Niggle") also has this theme of bureacracy ("the
>Inspector") versus the hero.
"Leaf by Niggle" is a little more ambiguous than it looks about the
rules. While one's sympathy is with Niggle's being oppressed by the
rules, it's quite clear that the Inspector is one of God's agents,
and that a large part of Purgatory for Niggle is his learning to
be more orderly.
On the other hand, the government in the epilogue is clearly
abominable. Maybe ambivalent is a better word than ambiguous, or
maybe the point is that rules are only valuable in the service of
something more important than themselves.
>With this context in mind, I think "The Scouring of the Shire" does
>work, the hobbits fall under the shadow, and one of the consequences
>of that is that they rapidly get sucked into an oppressive bureacracy.
>Having said that, I find Tolkien's overall idea of governance in his
>societies rather weak. The depth of history and mythology of
>Middle-Earth is one of LotR's greatest strengths, but the shallowness
>of its politics one of its most glaring weaknesses!
I can see your point of view in terms of the plausibility of Middle
Earth, but I find political intrigue fairly boring, so I'm not sure
that the lack of political detail adds up to a weakness in the book.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Dorothy J Heydt
>In article <jbask1.227...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>...What is more Tolkien comes from the intellectual
>>background that you would associate with someone who would be
>>more likely to either sympathise with the fascists pre1939 or
>>see them as the lesser of two evils. Before you flame this
>>just remember that the rural arcadia that Tolkien obviously
>>loved was also the sort of rural arcadia that played such a
>>big role in Germany fascist mythology. Just more English. I
>>won't even try to comment on his views on race. He was a right
>>wing conservative Catholic. Remember that.
>
>
>In his forward to the 2nd ed of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien clearly states
[appropriate quote snipped]
>Tolkein was ten in 1902. The enemy was industrialization as practiced in
>turn of the century England; not fascism or communism.
Thank you, Stuart, for squashing the silly person's theories with
big solid, weighty facts so I don't have to go look them up myself
(I'm at work and my copy of the LotR is at home).
Issib2
jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>
>> I remember reading something about how LoTR was to some extent
>>a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
>>period in which Tolkien wrote.
>
>If there is any political commentary in LotR it is about the
>USSR not Germany. Remember it was written in the Fifties and
>so Fascism was a thing of the past and the fascists were our
>new friends. What is more Tolkien comes from the intellectual
>background that you would associate with someone who would be
>more likely to either sympathise with the fascists pre1939 or
>see them as the lesser of two evils. Before you flame this
>just remember that the rural arcadia that Tolkien obviously
>loved was also the sort of rural arcadia that played such a
>big role in Germany fascist mythology. Just more English. I
>won't even try to comment on his views on race. He was a right
>wing conservative Catholic. Remember that.
>
>Joseph
In his forward to the 2nd ed of Lord of the Rings, Tolkien clearly states
that the LotR was begun in 1936 and finished in 1949. The LotR was no way
a product of the 50's. Tolkein's comments on the scouring of the Shire
from that forward are worth quoting:
"One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully
its oppression; but as the years go by it it seems often forgotten that to
be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous experience than to be
involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close
friends were dead. Or to take a less grievious matter: it has been
supposed by some that "The Scouring of the Shire" reflects the situation
in England at the time I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an
essential part of the plot, forseen from the outset, though in the event
modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without,
need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political
reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though
slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much
further back. The country I lived in childhood was being shabbily
destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I
had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways."
Tolkein was ten in 1902. The enemy was industrialization as practiced in
turn of the century England; not fascism or communism.
The quote is from the Forward to the 2nd Ed of _The Lord of the Rings_,
J.R.R. Tolkien, Houghton Mifflen, Boston, 1965. Typos (if any) are
mine.
Stuart Shank iss...@aol.com 11-02-95 00:12:32
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^
"Man is the only animal who blushes. Or needs to." ...M. Twain
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^
Niall McAuley
>In article <476om3$t...@portal.gmu.edu>,
>Andrew P Carter <acar...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote:
>>a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
>>period in which Tolkien wrote.
>somewhere) between allegory and applicability.
In fact, in an introduction to my edition of LOTR, Tolkein explicitly
states that he has disliked allegory since he grew old enough to
detect it, and that a Swedish edition in which the introduction
contained a statement that LOTR was an allegory of WWII annoyed him.
He says if LOTR had been an allegory, the good guys would
certainly have succumbed to temptation and used the ring.
So LOTR is not an allegory, it is just a story, according to the author.
-----
Niall
Andrew P Carter
: big role in Germany fascist mythology. Just more English. I
: won't even try to comment on his views on race. He was a right
: wing conservative Catholic. Remember that.
Though he put an entire race of Man on the side of Sauron, I
seem to remember (and this is from memory, so I don't know how accurate
it is) him portraying the Easterners as tall (I don't remember ever seeing
a short human:P), fierce, and brave, but not inherently evil.
Andrew P Carter
: In fact, in an introduction to my edition of LOTR, Tolkein explicitly
: states that he has disliked allegory since he grew old enough to
: detect it, and that a Swedish edition in which the introduction
: contained a statement that LOTR was an allegory of WWII annoyed him.
: He says if LOTR had been an allegory, the good guys would
: certainly have succumbed to temptation and used the ring.
: So LOTR is not an allegory, it is just a story, according to the author.
Maybe he meant it as just a story, but subconciously wrote it in the
image of WW2:) At any rate he was definitely affected by the war, and I
don't see how he could help writing it into the books. I also think a lot
of LOTR was for the most part an exercise of his scholarly abilities, in
the intricate language and racial systems he created.
Dorothy J Heydt
Michael Martinez <mma...@basis.com> wrote:
>
>The Rohirrim, being modelled on ancient Germans at the onset of the medieval
>period....
Oh, no, not Germans. They are Old English with just one cultural
difference--they ride horses, and even ride them into battle.
(The original Anglo-Saxons would ride horses to battle but dismount
and fight on foot.) Note that they speak, not the standard
English of Alfred's Wessex which is what we all learn in English
205 or whatever its number was, not even the also influential
Northumbrian dialect. They speak the Mercian dialect. --well,
of course, they live in the Mark, they would speak Markish
(that's what Mercian means)--but it goes further than that.
Tolkien lived in Oxford, which was originally part of the Kingdom
of Mercia. Not much written Mercian survives, but enough to let
you know what the sound-changes were. No trouble for Tolkien to
reconstruct as much Rohirrish as he wanted. (Remember the letter
where he's grumbling about something and says "Soon I shall
refuse to speak in anything but Old Mercian"? He could have done
it.)
>are very much like the Goths ....
Here you're closer to right than you know. Back in the appendices
somewhere Tolkien discusses the ancestors of the Rohirrim and
gives them all Gothic names. But the Rohirrim we meet in LotR
are Mercians. (and all their names mean something: look 'em up
in an Anglo-Saxon dictionary and remember that there are slight
differences between Wessex and Mercian dialects.)
Peter Cash
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <4792rn$j...@sloth.swcp.com>,
>Michael Martinez <mma...@basis.com> wrote:
>>The Rohirrim, being modelled on ancient Germans at the onset of the medieval
>>period....
>Oh, no, not Germans. They are Old English with just one cultural
>difference--they ride horses, and even ride them into battle.
>(The original Anglo-Saxons would ride horses to battle but dismount
>and fight on foot.) Note that they speak, not the standard...
Er, yes, but the Angles and Saxons _are_ Germans, aren't they? Just much
earlier than "medieval".
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |ca...@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Shirley
>
> >>Having said that, I find Tolkien's overall idea of governance in his
> >>societies rather weak. The depth of history and mythology of
> >>Middle-Earth is one of LotR's greatest strengths, but the shallowness
> >>of its politics one of its most glaring weaknesses!
> >
> >of political scheming in LotR one of its greatest charms.
>
> I should think the politics concerning Saruman and the intricacies of the
> relationships between the various races would be more noticeable. Sauron
> played on the differences between the various races and tried to capitalize on
> those differences.
>
> The constant back-biting among the Orcs and the open question concerning how
> Aragorn would be received in Gondor are also pretty good examples of politics
> in Middle-earth.
>
> In THE SILMARILLION, Beleriandic politics after the arrivals of the Noldor and
> the Edain seem pretty complicated, too. Thingol has to share out his power
> with other lords whom he doesn't fully trust, and Men have their own chieftans
> who in some cases answer to Elven kings and in the case of the Haladin don't
> really answer to anyone, but still have an "arrangement" with Doriath.
>
> Then Cirdan has friendly relations with the western Noldor and participates
> much more fully in their wars than Doriath. And the Dwarves of Nogrod and
> Belegost complicate the mixture too, as when the Nogrod Dwarves sack
> Menegroth.
>
> The political scheming is really there; it's just, IMHO, not put foremost in
> the reader's view. That would have been a mistake, as we would have seen too
> little of Middle-earth if we had seen so much of its politics.
>
>
> --
> ++ ++ "Well Samwise: What do you think of the elves now?"
> ||\ /|| --fbag...@mid.earth.com
> || v ||ichael Martinez (mma...@basis.com)
> ++ ++------------------------------------------------------
I'd have to agree. Expounding on or putting more focus on the
"politics" of ME would have debased the feel of all the stories
and made them on par with some of the drivel that passes for
fantasy.
Louis Epstein
: Roy Stilling (rp...@stilling.tcp.co.uk) wrote:
: : I do get the feeling that Tolkien deliberately associated bureacracy
: : and a more rigidly organised society with "evil" in general, perhaps
: : as force and order is the only way evil can guarantee loyalty. The
: : good OTOH offer their loyalty out of their own free-will and so no
: : more organisation is required. ISTR some of Tolkien's other work (I
: : Inspector") versus the hero.
: I remember reading something about how LoTR was to some extent
: a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
: period in which Tolkien wrote.
Not really...read his Foreword to TLotR for his comments on this...
Joseph Askew
>Oh, no, not Germans. They are Old English with just one cultural
>difference--they ride horses, and even ride them into battle.
>(The original Anglo-Saxons would ride horses to battle but dismount
>and fight on foot.)
I am sorry but are you saying that the Anglo-Saxons were
*not* Germans?
Joseph
Yale University Public Cluster User
>
> And Elrond's the Pope? Oops...Tolkien's british, that would
>be the Archbishop of Canterbury :)
Well, Tolkien WAS one of Britain's few Roman Catholics. The Pope might
fit better.
Peter Maksym
mls...@ibm.net
>On 1 Nov 1995 15:56:29 GMT, djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>> I could append a discussion of lembas as the Eucharist, but I
>> have to get back to work, so we'll take it as read.
>
>Hmm, so what does that make "cram" then?
Hardtack.
===================================================================
Marc Sanders (mls...@ibm.net)
"A good insult is like a good knife: short, sharp, and pointed."
===================================================================
Michael Martinez
ca...@news.eng.convex.com (Peter Cash) wrote:
>In article <47ddev$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4792rn$j...@sloth.swcp.com>,
>>Michael Martinez <mma...@basis.com> wrote:
>
>>>The Rohirrim, being modelled on ancient Germans at the onset of the
medieval
>>>period....
>
>>difference--they ride horses, and even ride them into battle.
>>(The original Anglo-Saxons would ride horses to battle but dismount
>
>Er, yes, but the Angles and Saxons _are_ Germans, aren't they? Just much
>earlier than "medieval".
I haven't seen the article that's been quoted as saying "Oh, no, not
Germans...." so I'll have to reply to yours.
The Rohirrim are very little like the Anglo-Saxons, though. The Rohirrim are
a steppe people and very much modelled on the Goths. The Angles and Saxons,
on the other hand, were sea-farers and woods dwellers.
Some of the customs among the Rohirrim which are very "Gothic" include their
horse-dances, their burial mounds (the Anglo-Saxons did not create such
mounds), their use of spears or lances (steppe weapons), and their custom of
dwelling in mountain valleys but using the plains for their herds.
People keep mistaking Tolkien's use of Old English for a translation of the
Rohirric language as a sign that he was somehow modelling the Rohirrim on the
Anglo-Saxons. In fact, the closest derivative of the Anglo-Saxons in
Middle-earth are the Beornings, who with the Woodmen appear to be quite
different in culture from the Rohirrim.
Like the Goths, who migrated from the north to the east and then to the west,
the Rohirrim are descended of Northmen whose ancestors migrated south along
the east side of Mirkwood and then passed west into the Vales of Anduin.
Are the Rohirrim somehow "medieval"? They don't appear to be. Their culture
very much resembles that of the Goths during the 4th and 5th Centuries A.D.
when they were still part of the Roman Empire (though some groups remained
outside for a long time). In fact, Tolkien's tradition of Gondor bringing
many Northmen south to repopulate the kingdoms is very similar to the way some
early Gothic groups were used by the Roman Empire to repopulate some
districts. These groups did not participate in the later migrations of the
Ostrogoths and Visigoths.
Some time ago someone mentioned that the cup offering by Eowyn was
"Anglo-Saxon" in nature; in fact, this was a common custom among the ancient
Germans and Scandinavians, so it doesn't support any arguments favoring an
"Anglo-Saxon connection".
I should also point out that the Rohirrim, very much like the Goths, had a
tradition of ancient royalty among them, whereas the Saxons did not, and even
the Angles didn't always adhere to their ancient monarchy, but set up petty
kingdoms in Britain in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
Louis Epstein
: > I remember reading something about how LoTR was to some extent
: >a comment on fascism. Which would make sense considering the time
: >period in which Tolkien wrote.
: If there is any political commentary in LotR it is about the
: USSR not Germany. Remember it was written in the Fifties and
: so Fascism was a thing of the past and the fascists were our
: new friends.
It was PUBLISHED in the Fifties,but according to the Foreword
WRITTEN between 1936 and 1949.
: What is more Tolkien comes from the intellectual
: background that you would associate with someone who would be
: more likely to either sympathise with the fascists pre1939 or
: see them as the lesser of two evils.
Hardly borne out by his disgusted response to the Nazi-Germany
publishers who wanted a statement of his racial purity before they
would publish THE HOBBIT!!
Louis Epstein
: Dorothy J Heydt (djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: : I could append a discussion of lembas as the Eucharist, but I
: : have to get back to work, so we'll take it as read.
: And Elrond's the Pope? Oops...Tolkien's british, that would
: be the Archbishop of Canterbury :)
Tolkien was a Roman Catholic...foster-son of a Catholic priest,father
of a Catholic priest!
Michael Martinez
djh...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>In article <4792rn$j...@sloth.swcp.com>,
>Michael Martinez <mma...@basis.com> wrote:
>>
>>The Rohirrim, being modelled on ancient Germans at the onset of the medieval
>>period....
>
>Oh, no, not Germans. They are Old English with just one cultural
>difference--they ride horses, and even ride them into battle.
>(The original Anglo-Saxons would ride horses to battle but dismount
>and fight on foot.)
Having just posted a reply to this as a reply to another article quoting you,
I think I should wait and see if you've gotten that one.
However, the quotation to which I was responding was very brief, and I have
now seen the original article in full.
>>are very much like the Goths ....
>
>Here you're closer to right than you know.
I hope you don't mind if I fell I'm closer to right than *you* know on this
point <g>.
>Back in the appendices somewhere Tolkien discusses the ancestors of the
>Rohirrim and gives them all Gothic names. But the Rohirrim we meet in LotR
>are Mercians. (and all their names mean something: look 'em up
>in an Anglo-Saxon dictionary and remember that there are slight
>differences between Wessex and Mercian dialects.)
I find very little of the Mercian culture in the depiction of Rohan. Tolkien
was simply using languages to imply a historical progression. Gothic is the
oldest known German writing (outside of runic inscriptions, which prior to the
4th Century AD are too few to give us any reasonable knowledge of the
languages of the north). Anglo-Saxon literature follows on Gothic
historically for the English (Visigothic legal documents survive from their
kingdom in Spain), and of course the late period names for Dwarves and Men of
Dale and Esgaroth are taken from Old Norse, which is younger than Anglo-Saxon
dialects.
Anyway, as I said, I'll wait to see your reply before repeating myself or
expanding on those points I've offered so far.
Therem
Roy Stilling wrote:
> Having said that, I find Tolkien's overall idea of governance in his
> societies rather weak. The depth of history and mythology of
> Middle-Earth is one of LotR's greatest strengths, but the shallowness
> of its politics one of its most glaring weaknesses!
>
> Roy Stilling | rp...@stilling.tcp.co.uk | "These are the days of
> Winchester, | http://www.tcp.co.uk/~stilling/ | miracle and wonder"
> England | | - Paul Simon
I don't think I agree. I think Tolkien's grasp of history encompassed a
knowledge of politics as well. His descriptions of Rohan, for example, are
dead-on accurate renditions of early Anglo-Saxon society c. 800AD. (See
_The Beginnings of English Society_ by Dorothy Whitelock.) There
indeed was no bureaucracy and each person's welfare was determined by
their allegiance to a lord. Loyalty or lack of it thus was a matter of
politics, and this is indeed a major theme in the Lord of the Rings. It
is not the politics that we know today, with our millions and millions of
citizens, but I believe that it can still go by the name.
-- Janice
Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)
: I haven't seen the article that's been quoted as saying "Oh, no, not
: The Rohirrim are very little like the Anglo-Saxons, though. The Rohirrim are
: a steppe people and very much modelled on the Goths. The Angles and Saxons,
: on the other hand, were sea-farers and woods dwellers.
: Some of the customs among the Rohirrim which are very "Gothic" include their
: horse-dances, their burial mounds (the Anglo-Saxons did not create such
: mounds), their use of spears or lances (steppe weapons), and their custom of
: dwelling in mountain valleys but using the plains for their herds.
Allow me to jump in here. As a historian with a specialty in ANglo-Saxon
England, I might be able to provide some insight.
Tolkien was influenced by many aspects of Early Germanic society in ghis
portrayal of the Rohirrim. Their language (as rendered in his
translation of the Red Book) more closely resembles Old English than
other Germanic languages. While culturally they are distinct from early
English society, nonetheless they owe a great debt to Tolkien's regard
for Anglo-Saxon society. This regard stems not from "pure" history,
but from literary sources which harked back to earlier times and
values.
First of all, the ANglo-Saxons used spears as their primary weapon in
battle. Look at the Bayeux Tapestry or the grave goods of pre-Christian
graves if you doubt me.
Second, burial mounds were certainly known to the Anglo-Saxons before the
coming of Christian missionaries. The burial mound at Sutton Hoo,
excavated in 1939, surely must rank as an antecedent for the mounds at
Edoras. Barring the unpleasantness in Europe, it was one of the biggest
news stories of the year.
Settlement patterns of early Germanic people are still not clear, and
they certainly were not in Tolkien's time. He would have had little
other than literary sources and place names to go on, and certainly there
are enough -dale, -cumb (c.f. Th eDeeping Coomb), and -dell placenames in
the British landscape for Tolkien to posit such dwellings for the
Anglo-Saxons.
However, poems like _Beowulf_ and "THe Battle of Maldon" served as a
model far more than any historical culture did. Theoden, a decrepit king
sitting withered in an empty hall, is surely a descendant of Hrothgar.
Meduseld is described in practically the same terms as Heorot. Their
poetry echoes in tone and form that of the Anglo-Saxon.
While it is true that the Anlglo-Saxons were not great cavalrymen, their
own myths suggest that they believed themselves to be at one time in the
distant path (remember that Tolkien was as concerned with Anglo-Saxon
myth as he was with historical culture). Remember, the two mythic
leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon migrations to Britain were named Horst
and Hengist, both of which suggest an equine affiliation.
In sum, Tolkien wanted his Rohirrim to be similar in spirit and outlook
to his beloved Anglo-Saxons, even though he deliberately distanced them
in regards to material culture. However, this does not mean that they
necessarily were modeled after the Goths.
: People keep mistaking Tolkien's use of Old English for a translation of the
: Rohirric language as a sign that he was somehow modelling the Rohirrim on the
: Anglo-Saxons. In fact, the closest derivative of the Anglo-Saxons in
: Middle-earth are the Beornings, who with the Woodmen appear to be quite
: different in culture from the Rohirrim.
: Like the Goths, who migrated from the north to the east and then to the west,
: the Rohirrim are descended of Northmen whose ancestors migrated south along
: the east side of Mirkwood and then passed west into the Vales of Anduin.
True, the names of the Rohirrim while they lived in Wilderland all have a
"Gothic" sound to them. However, Tolkien was well aware that language and
culture both changed over time. If he wanted the Rohirrim to be Gothic,
he would have had them speak Gothic. He would not have then lost the
association with modern English which presumably was his reason for
rendering Rohirric as OE. By putting Old English words in their mouths,
he is clearly associating them with the Anglo-Saxons.
: Are the Rohirrim somehow "medieval"? They don't appear to be. Their culture
: very much resembles that of the Goths during the 4th and 5th Centuries A.D.
: when they were still part of the Roman Empire (though some groups remained
: outside for a long time). In fact, Tolkien's tradition of Gondor bringing
: many Northmen south to repopulate the kingdoms is very similar to the way some
: early Gothic groups were used by the Roman Empire to repopulate some
: districts. These groups did not participate in the later migrations of the
: Ostrogoths and Visigoths.
If you're trying to find parallels, remember that the foederati Goths
then overran the Roman Empire, while the Rohirrim remained loyal friends.
You can only push this comparison so far before you run into trouble.
However, the analogy of the foederati also works for the Anglo-Saxons who,
according to Bede and Gildas, were invited into Britain by the
Romano-British.
By the way, by any non-British convention, the fifth century is defined
as "early medieval." (The Brits, for reasons unclear to me, only use
"medieval" to describe post-1066). I agree that this migration period, in
which the foundation for medieval and modern Europe was laid, served as
the basis for Rohirric culture, but if you check a wide variety of
sources (which you seem loath to cite), you'll find more parallels to the
early English than you saw previously.
: Some time ago someone mentioned that the cup offering by Eowyn was
: "Anglo-Saxon" in nature; in fact, this was a common custom among the ancient
: Germans and Scandinavians, so it doesn't support any arguments favoring an
: "Anglo-Saxon connection".
Yes, but the vast majority of Tolkien's scholarship was in Old English and
early Middle English literature. The Old English sources, far more than
those in any other tongue, influenced his writing. Just as Meduseld draws
on the image of Heorot, Eowyn's cup-offering is a direct descendant of
Waeltheow's similar service in _Beowulf._ Sure, other Germanic cultures
had similar roles for women, but I would argue that it was the Old English
sources which were most influential. Gothic sources from or describing
this period are far, far scantier than the Old English ones, but if you
are aware of any which more accurately parallel the scenes of Rohirric
culture, I wish you would share them.
: I should also point out that the Rohirrim, very much like the Goths, had a
: tradition of ancient royalty among them, whereas the Saxons did not, and even
: the Angles didn't always adhere to their ancient monarchy, but set up petty
: kingdoms in Britain in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
How many barrows were there in front of Edoras? Eorl was the first king,
who dated from about 5 centuries before the War of the Ring. Hardly an
"ancient" line by Middle-earth's standards. Furthermore, what evidence is
there for ancient kingship among the Goths? Tacitus, our earliest source
for all Germanic peoples, refers to the oppressiveness, rather than the
antiquity of the Gothic kings. Jordanes, writing in the 6th century,
refers to ancient kings, but he is writing a mythic history and is not
overly burdened by facts. He even admits that Alaric, bane of the Romans,
was _appointed_ king in the fourth century. Most likely, his descendants
hired historians like Jordanes to write ethno-history to add legitimacy to
their line, but the Anglo-Saxons did exactly the same thing. Once they
were established, Anglo-Saxon kings traced lines of kingship going first
to Horst and Hengist, then to Odin, and then back to Adam.
I suggest James Campbell's _The Anglo-Saxons_ as an excellent
introduction to Anglo-Saxon England. For a discussion more pertinent to
these themes, try Nick Howe's _Migration and Mythmaking in Anglo-Saxon
England._
--
Mark W. Rabuck | Sine viri copula
Department of Medieval Studies | Florem dedit virgula
Yale University | Qui manet in secula
Joseph Askew
> Though he put an entire race of Man on the side of Sauron, I
>seem to remember (and this is from memory, so I don't know how accurate
>it is) him portraying the Easterners as tall (I don't remember ever seeing
>a short human:P), fierce, and brave, but not inherently evil.
The men who side with Sauron, at least in LoTR, are almost
uniformly non-White. They may not be inherently evil but
the "lesser breeds without the Law" certainly have that sort
of tendency. Besides everyone is tall compared to a hobbit.
Suppose for a moment that the Germans did win the war and so
LoTR came out under a proNazi regime, what would JRRT have to
change to get it past Nazi censorship? Be less forgiving to
Smeagol perhaps?
Joseph
Dennis Higbee
> And Elrond's the Pope? Oops...Tolkien's british, that would
>be the Archbishop of Canterbury :)
Nope, Tolkien was Catholic. That would make Elrond the Pope,
but Galadriel really has no place. And what's Gandalf,
a missionary?
-Dennis
Trister K
without the Law" he was refering to the GERMANS not various third world
peoples. Read the poem.
Dorothy J Heydt
Andrew P Carter <acar...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
> ...and Gandalf fits
>almost to a tee the bearded, wandering holy man/hermit/preacher...
Doesn't Carpenter's biography have Tolkien saying to somebody
somewhere that Gandalf is an angel? (I know, vague; so's the
passage)
Michael Martinez
mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) wrote:
>Tolkien was very familiar with the Goths, and though I've never said he
>modelled the Rohirrim after the Goths, if we were to try to establish *who*
>the actual model was, I'd favor the Goths over the Anglo-Saxons.
This statement bothered me somewhat, so I went back and looked at my previous
article. I *did*, in fact, make the claim that Tolkien modelled the Rohirrim
on the Goths. I should have been more careful in both making the first
statement and then denying I'd made it.
I feel there is a very strong "Gothic" element in Tolkien's representation of
the Rohirrim, but I don't feel they are any more a euphemism for the Goths
than they are a euphemism for the Anglo-Saxons. The Gothic parallels are
stronger, though, and thinking of that point led me to write:
> The Rohirrim are very little like the Anglo-Saxons, though. The Rohirrim
> are a steppe people and very much modelled on the Goths. The Angles and
> Saxons, on the other hand, were sea-farers and woods dwellers.
There aren't many ancient German tribes who were "steppe peoples". Tolkien
would have had to use the Goths as a model to some extent as they are better
documented and understood than other steppe Germans. But it was misleading
for me to say the Rohirrim were "very much modelled on the Goths".
The strong Gothic elements are there, but that doesn't make the Rohirrim
"Goths" by some other name. The Rohirrim were idealized Northmen, romantic
paradigms.
Mark Jamison
>In article <47k745$e...@portal.gmu.edu>,
>Andrew P Carter <acar...@osf1.gmu.edu> wrote:
>> ...and Gandalf fits
>>almost to a tee the bearded, wandering holy man/hermit/preacher...
>Doesn't Carpenter's biography have Tolkien saying to somebody
>somewhere that Gandalf is an angel? (I know, vague; so's the
>passage)
Actually I believe it's in the Letters as well..
And he's only an angel if you say that Maiar are angels..
Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)
: In article <47j68f$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
: mwra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)) wrote:
: Here's a quotation from Appendix F. This is a footnote attached to the end of
: the paragraph mentioning the names Shadowfax and Wormtongue:
: "This linguistic procedure does not imply that the Rohirrim
: closely resembled the ancient English otherwise, in culture or
: art, in weapons or modes of warfare, except in a general way
: due to their circumstances: a simpler and more primitive
: people living in contact with a higher and more venerable
: culture, and occupying lands that had once been part of
: its domain."
Yes, but neither does Tolkien claim that they were Gothic, as you seem
intent on proving. I believe I have demonstrated numerous cases where
Tolkien's depiction of Rohirric culture is directly beholden to
Anglo-Saxon poetry. Can you offer counter-examples? Just because the
author makes an assertion doesn't make it true. After all, the entire
LotR is asserted to be a translation of the Red Book of Westmarch. Do
you believe that too?
: >First of all, the ANglo-Saxons used spears as their primary weapon in
: >battle. Look at the Bayeux Tapestry or the grave goods of pre-Christian
: >graves if you doubt me.
: The Bayeux Tapestry is not the only source we have for their weapons, though.
: And the spears used by the infantry were infantile compared to the long
: lances used by mounted warriors. The Anglo-Saxons also used a lot of
: hand-axes. In fact, at Hastings, they stood behind their shield-wall and
: tossed a lot of these hand-axes at the Normans.
: The ancient name "Saxon" also comes from "Saex", a name for a short-sword, but
: I'll grant you that the mixture of peoples in Britain introduced the Saxons
: there to many other types of weapons.
Sources? What sources do you use? The only evidence for axes being
thrown at Hastings comes from the Bayeux Tapestry. And what do you mean
by "infantile?" The Anglo-Saxons at Hastings were an even match for the
mounted Normans until their formation broke.
However, I would suggest that grave goods provide the best evidence for
Anglo-Saxon weaponry in the migration period. Do you dispute that
spear-points are by far the most abundant type of weaponry found?
: The burial mound at Sutton Hoo was a royal burial with a ship inside of it. I
: felt, after I posted that article, that I probably needed to clarify which
: mounds of which I spoke, and those were the mounds of the dead warriors.
And the difference being? Burial mounds were common to most Germanic
peoples. In your original post, you seemed to exlude the Riders from
having Anglo-Saxon antecedents because they built burial mounds. I was
merely pointing out that the mounds at Edoras might be specifically
modeled after an Anglo-Saxon practice.
: Meduseld is a very generic hall, and closely resembles the model of many
: ancient northern halls, both historical and poetical. Heorot, in fact, was
: supposed to be familiar to people throughout the northern world.
But meduseld is an Old English term which means "mead-hall," which is the
precise term used by the Beowulf-poet to describe Heorot. Certainly,
there are other feast halls in Germanic literature, but none which play
so central a role to the action or so personify the plight of the invalid
king. If you know of any other pertinent sources, please share them.
: As for whether Theoden was drawn from Hrothgar or not is irrelevant to the
: point in question, which is whether the Rohirrim were modelled on the
: Anglo-Saxons. We can grasp for straws in many directions, but we can't
: overcome the fact that their differences were quite strong.
Au contraire. If Tolkien's models for kingship derive primarily from
Anglo-Saxon poetry, then I think it is safe to assume that Anglo-Saxon
culture has a far greater influnce on Rohirric than you posit. Granted,
there are major cultural differences between the two, but no other
historical culture comes close to having the impact on Rohirric culture
than early medieval English.
: >While it is true that the Anlglo-Saxons were not great cavalrymen, their
: >own myths suggest that they believed themselves to be at one time in the
: >distant path (remember that Tolkien was as concerned with Anglo-Saxon
: >myth as he was with historical culture). Remember, the two mythic
: >leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon migrations to Britain were named Horst
: >and Hengist, both of which suggest an equine affiliation.
: Hengist and Horsa were sea-farers, not cavalrymen. The meanings of their
: names were established well before their biths and namings (assuming Bede got
: their names and history right in the first place).
Horst and Hengist were named by people who lived many generations after
their lives to establish a settlement myth. We have no contemporary
evidence for tehir existence. So why would seafarers name the founders
of their race after horses? You seem to assume a lot about Anglo-Saxon
history, but I have yet to see you cite a single source.
: Tolkien was very familiar with the Goths, and though I've never said he
: modelled the Rohirrim after the Goths, if we were to try to establish *who*
: the actual model was, I'd favor the Goths over the Anglo-Saxons.
Yes, but he was an Anglo-Saxonist. he taught in an English department.
All of his publications concerned English, not Continental sources. He
expressed admiration countless times for Old English poetry and culture.
Hell, he even started writing the Silmarillion as a basis for an
"English mythology." Nowhere does he establish even remotely similar
esteem for Gothic culture. Your only argument for the comparisonb is
that the Goths rode horses (note that only the Ostragoths were
cavalrymen). This is hardly conclusive.
: >True, the names of the Rohirrim while they lived in Wilderland all have a
: >"Gothic" sound to them. However, Tolkien was well aware that language and
: >culture both changed over time. If he wanted the Rohirrim to be Gothic,
: >he would have had them speak Gothic.
: You've clearly missed the point. Tolkien didn't want the Rohirrim to be
: "Gothic" -- he wanted them to be the idealized Northmen. The most famous
: Germanic legends are alleged to have derived from a real war between the Goths
: (under Hunnish rule) and the Burgundians.
Do you mean the Niebelungenlied? This was an Old High German, not a
Gothic source. You are the one who is dead set against an association
between Anglo-Saxons and Rohirrim. Why? Are they perhaps not "Germanic"
enough for your tastes? I hope that I have clearly demonstrated that all
of the elements which you assert to be Gothic over Anglo-Saxon in fact
pertain to the English as well.
: The mythic progression from Gothic
: tradition to Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian tradition was very significant for
: Tolkien.
Sources? This seems to prove my above point. How can you argue for a
Germanic archetype in one sentence and a cultural progression in the
next? By the way, the Anglo-Saxons were NOT descendants of the Goths, as
any student of Old English or early medieval history should know.
: What he was trying to do was show a progression from an early state to a late
: state of this romantic ideal, and the linguistic aspects were represented in
: an evolution from Gothic to Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian.
See above.
: >He would not have then lost the association with modern English which
: >presumably was his reason for rendering Rohirric as OE. By putting Old
: >English words in their mouths, he is clearly associating them with the
: >Anglo-Saxons.
: Well, perhaps when you've read the footnote from the Appendix you'll see this
: interpretation is incorrect, but I can offer other citations from Tolkien's
: own writings:
: "Having gone so far in my attempt to modernize and make familiar the
: language and name of Hobbits, I found myself involved in a further
: process. The Mannish languages that were related to the Westron
: should, it seemed to me, be turned into forms related to English.
: The language of Rohan I have accordingly made to resemble ancient
: English, since it was related both (more distantly) to the Common
: Speech, and (very closely) to the former tongue of the northern
: Hobbits, and was in comparison with the Westron archaic."
This is irrelevant to your point (see my argument above) and in fact
supports my own contention that Old English culture formed the basis for
Rohirric.
: The linguistic device here stated to have been used for effect has been
: extrapolated by many (including you) as a justification for the identification
: of the Rohirrim with the Anglo-Saxons. After all, the myths of Middle-earth
: are supposed to be an English mythology, right? And yet, it was the
: Numenoreans whom Tolkien focused on, not the Rohirrim. The Rohirrim were a
: people of collateral descent and were not central to the theme at all. They
: were even late-comers to the stage.
But this is not a reason why Tolkien would not incorporate elements of a
culture he loved into his work.
: The Goths did not overrun the empire. Where did you get this idea? They
: demanded and eventually received lands for kingdoms, but these kingdoms were
: small until the Visigoths established themselves at Toulouse (under Imperial
: sponsorship). None of the Gothic kingdoms was unauthorized until the Franks
: drove the Visigoths into Spain. In fact, the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy was
: technically still a part of the empire until the war in the 6th Century.
: Theodoric recognized Roman Law and Imperial suzerainty.
OK, I can't even maintain the veneer of politeness anymore. Who wiped
out Valens at Adrianople? Who sacked Rome in 410? Who ousted Romulus
Augustulus, thereby officially ending the Enpire, in 476. Read some
history, man, before you play historian. Your assertions are baseless
and misleading.
: >By the way, by any non-British convention, the fifth century is defined
: >as "early medieval." (The Brits, for reasons unclear to me, only use
: >"medieval" to describe post-1066).
: Every American reference I've seen defines the medieval period as 500-1500.
: That leaves out the 5th Century. Even if we go back to 476 AD, when the last
: western emperor was deposed by Odovacar (at the instigation of the eastern
: emperor), that still excludes 3/4 of the 5th Century.
Why don't you name a reference. While there is no accepted date for the
inception of the Middle Ages, the end of Rome (410 or 476, depending on
your preference) makes a good basis. Would you argue that Augustine and
Jerome were not medieval?
: >but if you check a wide variety of sources (which you seem loath to cite),
: >you'll find more parallels to the early English than you saw previously.
: "Loathe to cite". Interesting. I've just scanned your article and find you
: guilty of the same sin. How, pray tell, did this become a question of
: citations from historical texts all of a sudden, in which I am suddenly in
: default but not you?
OK, I've cited _Beowulf_, "The Battle of Maldon," Howe's _Migration and
Mythmaking_. Have you even read an Old English poem? I am fluent in both
Latin and Old English. I have spent the last six years in graduate study
of Anglo-Saxon history at Yale. I'm not claiming that this makes me the
sole expert on the field, but I think it certainly qualifies me as being
able to form learned opinions.
: If you really want to go head-to-head on this issue, be prepared to keep the
: facts straight (as you seem to have trouble doing so).
Is this coming from the same person who didn't know Sutton Hoo was a
burial mound or did not know that the Anglo-Saxons' primary weapon was
the spear?
: >
: >Yes, but the vast majority of Tolkien's scholarship was in Old English and
: >early Middle English literature. The Old English sources, far more than
: >those in any other tongue, influenced his writing. Just as Meduseld draws
: >on the image of Heorot, Eowyn's cup-offering is a direct descendant of
: >Waeltheow's similar service in _Beowulf._ Sure, other Germanic cultures
: >had similar roles for women, but I would argue that it was the Old English
: >sources which were most influential. Gothic sources from or describing
: >this period are far, far scantier than the Old English ones, but if you
: >are aware of any which more accurately parallel the scenes of Rohirric
: >culture, I wish you would share them.
: You've clapped a lot of points together here. Tolkien, in fact, was
: well-versed in Gothic and Old Norse. He and the other Inklings used to
: translate the Icelandic sagas to each other off the top of their heads, more
: or less.
: Also, the cup-offering was in no way an English-only custom. Having named
: yourself a historian, you should know better than to misrepresent a
: wide-spread and well-documented northern custom as something which is attested
: mainly in English sources. Any cheap book on the Vikings, for instance, will
: usually include pictures of their drinking cups and a discussion of how
: important drinking and feasting was to them and other northern peoples.
I do not read "cheap books." Why will you not respond to my argument
that Beowulf formed the primary model for Rohirric culture?
I never argued that cup-bearing was exclusively Anglo-Saxon, as you
claimed, but that Old English cup bearing is more likely the antecedent
for the scene in Meduseld than other Germanic sources.
: If you want a historical reference to look up, consider the story of the
: Lombards and the Gepids. That's pretty famous and if you don't know of it
: then your knowledge of ancient German history and customs is somewhat lacking.
And to what story are you referring? Can you not even name it? Some
"expert" you are.
: You seem to be unaware or conveniently overlooking the traditions concerning
: Frumgar and Fram (the older kings, mentioned outside of LOTR, I leave out).
: Recall that Eowyn gave Meriadoc the horn from the hoard of Scatha.
: Eorl was relatively late in the line of the kings revered by the Rohirrim.
And is known as the "First King of the Rohirrim" in the Tale of Years.
Sounds like a founder of a line to me.
: >Furthermore, what evidence is there for ancient kingship among the Goths?
: >Tacitus, our earliest source for all Germanic peoples, refers to the
: >oppressiveness, rather than the antiquity of the Gothic kings.
: First of all, Tacitus is not the earliest reference for Germanic peoples, so
: your knowledge of ancient German history is here demonstrated to be sadly
: lacking. Secondly, Tacitus barely mentions any peoples associated with the
: Goths of history. He does mention the Gotones.
Duuhhh, who do you think he meant? And what earlier sources do you know
that meantion the Goths? Yes, other sources mention the Germanic
peoples, but not the goths. Read a book, please.
: Thirdly, even Tacitus acknowledges that the Germans had ancient noble families
: from whom their kings and warleaders were selected.
But he cannot attest their antiquity, can he?
: >Jordanes, writing in the 6th century, refers to ancient kings, but he is
: >writing a mythic history and is not overly burdened by facts. He even admits
: >that Alaric, bane of the Romans, was _appointed_ king in the fourth century.
: Alaric came of the Amali, the historical family which ruled one the
: precursor tribes of the Goths in the 4rd Century AD. The Amali were said to
: have been quite ancient, as well, though the history associated with them is
: considered to be flagrantly false prior to the 4th Century, though still
: bearing some accurate notions of the migration.
: You *are* aware of the Amali, aren't you?
What does this have to do with kingship? Just because Alaric came from a
noble line does not mean he was of royal blood. And what access do you
have to higher knowledge that supercedes what we know from the written
sources?
: >Most likely, his descendants hired historians like Jordanes to write
: >ethno-history to add legitimacy to their line, but the Anglo-Saxons did
: >exactly the same thing. Once they were established, Anglo-Saxon kings traced
: >lines of kingship going first to Horst and Hengist, then to Odin, and then
: >back to Adam.
: Perhaps you should read up on Gothic history. I suggest you look up H.
: Wolfram's THE HISTORY OF THE GOTHS. It's fairly recent and quite good, as it
: draws upon many ancient sources and archaeology as well. You will find it to
: be quite enlightening.
Perhaps you should read it as well, far more critically than you seem to
have. And I do mean critically, for Wolfram's book was not altogether
well-received. You should also read some Anglo-Saxon history, if
you are going to be making baseless claims about their culture.
How convenient of you to delete some sources I cited.
I apologize for the tone of this post. If you wish to engage in further
discussion, please e-mail me directly. However, unless you are willing
to admit that your knowledge of early medieval history than you
claim, I don't see that such a discussion can be productive.
Greg Tanner
>: Nope, Tolkien was Catholic. That would make Elrond the Pope,
>: but Galadriel really has no place. And what's Gandalf,
>: a missionary?
>
> She could be one of the innumerable saints...and Gandalf fits
>almost to a tee the bearded, wandering holy man/hermit/preacher...
In his early years, Tolkien went on a trip to the Swiss Alps. While
there, he obtained a picture of an old, man with a long beard smoking an
enormous pipe and leaning against a rock. On this picture, he wrote, 'the
origin of Gandalf', and kept the picture to the end of his life.
You can ascribe any references, allusions, or allegory you like to
Tolkien, but I see no harm in calling LotR a distinctly new myth, even if
influenced by Anglo-Saxon and Finnish roots.
Michael Scudder
of the King (appendix F), there is the footnote:
This linguistic procedure does not imply that the Rohirrim closely resembled
the ancient English otherwise, in culture or art, in weapons or modes of
warfare, except in a general way due to their circumstances: a simpler and
more primitive people living in contact with a higher and more venerable
culture, and occupying lands that had once been part of its domain.
EMail: SCU...@CS.UMASS.EDU Phone: (413)784-3951
SMail: Mike Scudder, COINS Dept., Even a fool, when he keeps silent,
Univ of Mass, Amherst, MA 01003 is considered wise. Proverbs 17:28
Dennis Higbee
Peter Cash <ca...@news.eng.convex.com> wrote:
>In article <12...@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, C.C.Allgrove <cc...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <jbask1.235...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>...
>It may be true that the first unified German state didn't come into
>existence until the time of Bismarck, but it does not follow that the
>German people didn't exist before that. The German nation was an expression
>of the desire of (at least some of) the German people to have a state, and
>of Bismarck's determination to bring that desire to fruition. To say that
>Germans didn't exist before Germany is like saying that there were no
>Irishmen before the Irish Republic, or Jews before Israel.
Germany as a nation state may have only existed since 1871, but
the Holy Roman Empire previously existed since 800 or 962,
depending who you ask, so a kingdom existed in what is now
Germany since well before Hastings. It is safe to say, I think
that there was a sense of "Germanness" among the German-
speaking peoples of the Empire since well before Martin Luther's
day. Perhaps even as far back as Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1190). The
reason a German nation state never developed (or one of them) is
that Imperial power went into eclipse after the death of
Frederick II in 1250, which closed a long period of war with the
papacy. The Hapsburgs never attempted to centralize power, and
so instead of growing centralization a la England and France
from 1300-1600, you get the continuation of a patchwork quasi-
feudal system long on local authority.
The first reference to Germans by historians is Louis the German,
Charlemagne's grandson, who ruled the Eastern half of the
Empire. So, it's possible to say that Clovis and Charlemagne
were Germanic kings, while Louis and Otto the Great were
German kings. (Mind you, it isn't necessarily right...)
>Now, as to the question of whether the Angles and the Saxons were Germanic
>people, I really must confess that though I am of the opinion that they
>are, I have no special expertise or handy historical citations. I therefore
>welcome information from anyone who is in a position to know.
>
Yes, the Angles and Saxons were Germanic. Many of their traditions
are Germanic in nature (see kingship), and they migrated from what
is now Germany. Many Saxons stayed in Saxony, BTW, until Charle-
magne politely explained to them at sword point that they were going
to stop being Saxon pagans, and start being Roman-Christian citizens
of his empire.
Michael Fouhy
> seem to remember (and this is from memory, so I don't know how accurate
> it is) him portraying the Easterners as tall (I don't remember ever seeing
> a short human:P), fierce, and brave, but not inherently evil.
The Elves all (or almost all) left the East way back before the coming of
man, and the Valar never went over there to check on the men. Sauron &
Morgoth were both masters of guile (remember Numenore? Morgoth in
Valinor?), and I think it not unreasonable that they could have portrayed
quite effectivly to the Easterlings the image of the Valar as evil, or
the Elves as wanting the men for slaves, or whatever...
Thomas Koenig
>Er, yes, but the Angles and Saxons _are_ Germans, aren't they? Just much
>earlier than "medieval".
On the shortcomings of the English language :-)
I don't think it is possible, in English, to distinguish between
the current inhabitants of Germany and the people who lived there
during Roman times.
In the German language, this is quite possible - Angles and Saxons
were "Germanen", but they certainly were not "Deutsche" (which term
only came into being after Charlemagne, and was well established
only around 1000 or so).
--
Thomas König, Thomas...@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet.
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.
Michael Martinez
mwra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)) wrote:
>OK, I can't even maintain the veneer of politeness anymore. Who wiped
>out Valens at Adrianople? Who sacked Rome in 410? Who ousted Romulus
>Augustulus, thereby officially ending the Enpire, in 476. Read some
>history, man, before you play historian. Your assertions are baseless
>and misleading.
In my haste this morning to document many of your errors, I missed the most
blatant.
In fact, the Goths had nothing to do with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus
in 476. Odovacar came from the Sciri, a non-Gothic tribe, and his army was
composed largely of mercenaries anyway.
And as Odovacar also had a deal with the emperor in Constantinople, the issue
of whether the empire was officially ended depends on one's perspective.
Joseph Askew
>>I am sorry but are you saying that the Anglo-Saxons were
>>*not* Germans?
>No they weren't, really. Germany didn't exist until the 19th century,
>so they couldn't have been.
So when the Romans fought people they called Germans in what
they called Upper and Lower Germany they were really fight whom?
Leprecauns in the Land of Oz?
>They were one of a huge number of societies that migrated
>east (hmm, quick link back into Tolkien there!) and happened to settle in England.
They were three of a large number of ethnically related tribal
groups that moved to the East and happened to settle in England
and Scotland you mean.
>I would say it is wrong to try to tie in a race of people from the 4th or 5th
>century to a nation state
Which I didn't. The word "Germany" did not pass my lips. There
is a slight difference between Germans and people from Germany
even if strictly we ought to be arguing if they were Germanic.
Joseph
Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)
I sincerely and humbly apologize for my tone in previous posts on this
thread. I used to brag to my friends about the polite discourse on this
group, and now I find myself guilty of a sin that I have publicly decried
in the past. I admit that my zeal for both Tolkien and Anglo-Saxon
history got the better of me, and I allowed myself to be drawn into a
rather contentious debate. Tolkien scholarship is not served by
pettiness, and I fear that such a tone might discourage other people from
posting in the future. Please do not allow my vanity and arrogance to
hinder cordial discussion.
Mr. Martinez, you clearly want to win this argument far, far more than I
do. I happily concede to you all of your points, if such will make you
happy. I hope you agree with me that we do not honor the spirit of
Tokien or his works by squabbling over historical minutia in such a way.
I am unlikely to convnce you, and you will not ever persuade me of our
respective interpretations of Toklien's work or early medieval history.
Let us agree to disagree. In an earlier post, you made reference to the
Inklings. In future postings, let us attempt to emulate their
collegiality, if not always their erudition.
I thank the group for their understanding.
Dennis Higbee
>>almost to a tee the bearded, wandering holy man/hermit/preacher...
>
>somewhere that Gandalf is an angel? (I know, vague; so's the
>passage)
>
Gandalf is a member (as are all the Wizards) of the "angelic"
Maiar, one step below the Valar. Sauron was a Maia, too before
his fall.
-Dennis
Nancy Lebovitz
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <47lfkh$h...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
>
>>>The men who side with Sauron, at least in LoTR, are almost
>>>uniformly non-White.
>
>
>When a group of Men comes to the aid of Sauron in LotR they are
>just what I said nearly always not white. Some obviously White
>people do help Sauron but by and large they are described as
>being either Asians or at best Mediterranian. Look at the ambush
>Faramir sets for the allies of Sauron marching to Mordor. How
>white are they? Are they in fact the only people of colour to
>appear in LotR? This however is not an issue I wish to discuss.
>
>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>have had to change a word?
>
I don't know how strict Nazi censorship was, but I do think that
the ideal of many races living in peace with each other is un-Nazi.
Also, purity was one of the fundamental Nazi ideas, and LOTR is
in favor of complex living systems. I don't think Nazis would
have much use for "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer",
nor for the idea that heroism is something you evoke when you must,
but not the basic standard of value.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Michael Martinez
ig...@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.written, ca...@news.eng.convex.com (Peter Cash) wrote:
>
>>Er, yes, but the Angles and Saxons _are_ Germans, aren't they? Just much
>>earlier than "medieval".
>
>On the shortcomings of the English language :-)
>
>I don't think it is possible, in English, to distinguish between
>the current inhabitants of Germany and the people who lived there
>during Roman times.
Well, the Franks and the Alemanni moved out. The Franks went to what is now
France and the Alemanni went to what is now Switzerland.
Then some of the Saxons and Frisians went to Britain.
And when we speak of the Germans of the late Roman period, we don't speak of
the state of Germany, which obviously didn't exist. I would say that it would
be more inappropriate to speak of early Americans as the ancestors of the
majority of today's US citizens.
Peter Cash
Really? I have read the poem, and it's pretty clear to me that by "lesser
breeds without the law", Kipling is referring to those who do not know or
honor the laws of the God of Abraham. (Not exclusively or necessarily what
we would call "third world" countries, by the way.)
RECESSIONAL
God of our fathers, known of old--
Lord of our far-flung battle-line--
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine--
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
The tumult and the shouting dies--
The captains and the kings depart--
Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Les we forget, lest we forget!
Far-call'd our navies melt away--
On dune and headland sinks the fire--
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe--
Such boasting as the Gentiles use
Or lesser breeds without the Law--
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget!
For heathen heart that puts her trust
In reeking tube and iron shard--
All valiant dust that builds on dust,
And guarding calls not Thee to guard--
For frantic boast and foolish word
Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. |
Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |ca...@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Cash
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <47lfkh$h...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>have had to change a word?
Probably not much. Just that little scene where the Ring goes into the
Fire--that would have to go, I think.
But what _is_ your point? That if the Nazis wouldn't have censored it, it
must be a pro-Nazi work?
Riku Saikkonen
>Also, purity was one of the fundamental Nazi ideas, and LOTR is
>in favor of complex living systems. I don't think Nazis would
>have much use for "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer",
>nor for the idea that heroism is something you evoke when you must,
>but not the basic standard of value.
Yep, nor "and help oft shall come from the hands of the weak when the Wise
falter." (well, that's from the Silmarillion, but you get the idea), and the
other individualistic not-respecting-authority things (e.g. Beregond,
Éowyn). And good leaders turned bad (Saruman, especially Denethor) in a lust
for power (the Ring).
And there are the Wild Men in the woods, who certainly weren't white
civilised people, and yet they were good. And the Elves, which were in
general much wiser than Men. And the Ents.
And this (along with Legolas's and Gimli's friendship) is definitely an
anti-racist view:
"Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in
the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him."
- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
So, I wouldn't say Tolkien was anywhere near fascist or Nazian, even if he
did favour white people.
Also, I just can not place the following in a system that has concentration
camps:
"`I can't understand you. Do you mean to say that you, and the Elves, have
let him live on after all those horrible deeds? Now at any rate he is as bad
as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death.'
`Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some
that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to
deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
--
-=- Rjs -=- r...@spider.compart.fi - IRC: Rjs
Which is better: well-written software or heavily marketed software?
Joseph Askew
>>The men who side with Sauron, at least in LoTR, are almost
>>uniformly non-White.
>"...almost uniformly non-White"??? Would you please clarify this?
When a group of Men comes to the aid of Sauron in LotR they are
just what I said nearly always not white. Some obviously White
people do help Sauron but by and large they are described as
being either Asians or at best Mediterranian. Look at the ambush
Faramir sets for the allies of Sauron marching to Mordor. How
white are they? Are they in fact the only people of colour to
appear in LotR? This however is not an issue I wish to discuss.
Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
have had to change a word?
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>The "men who side with Sauron" are non-white simply because
>they are non-European.
Obviously.
>Minas Tirith equates to
>Constantinople, which was on the very eastern edge of
>Europe.
Really now? And what do you base this on?
>Thus, 'swertings' were Arabs and/or Indians; the
>"black men like half-trolls" were Africans.
I have no problems with this. As I said he had a very
unusual view of race.
>In Tolkien's day, all foreigners were aliens, an unknown
>quantity. You should not read fascism into this.
In Tolkien's day this was flatly not true. I am not
reading fascism into it. I don't think he was. I am
just saying that as far as you can associate him with
either of the two totalitarian political systems he
did not side with the Communists. He was a lot closer
to the Germans. Hence if it is an allegory of one or
the other it is not of fascism.
Joseph
Michael Martinez
jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>In article <47lfkh$h...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez)
>
>>>The men who side with Sauron, at least in LoTR, are almost
>>>uniformly non-White.
>
>>"...almost uniformly non-White"??? Would you please clarify this?
>
>When a group of Men comes to the aid of Sauron in LotR they are
>just what I said nearly always not white. Some obviously White
>people do help Sauron but by and large they are described as
>being either Asians or at best Mediterranian. Look at the ambush
>Faramir sets for the allies of Sauron marching to Mordor. How
>white are they? Are they in fact the only people of colour to
>appear in LotR? This however is not an issue I wish to discuss.
I think your definition of non-White and mine differ, as I view Mediterranean
and Middle-eastern peoples to be "white", though skin color isn't something I
dwell on.
>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>have had to change a word?
Tolkien would have had to emphasize the Northmen, probably, to get past the
Nazis. But since both the Soviets and Nazis are currently not running any
countries (overtly, at least) where LOTR is desired, I think this is a moot
point.
LOTR doesn't seem to be a very biased book at all with respect to race. It
represents a mythology for a certain region of the world where Caucasians
predominate; it would be unreasonable to have good Africans or good Orientals
come charging across the countryside to help the Gondorians.
That some of the bad guys seem to be modelled visually on peoples who
historically were enemies of European cultures should not be taken to mean
that most are uniformly non-White. The Easterlings made up the majority of
the Mannish armies encountered in LOTR and I cannot find any passages which
paint them as non-Whites.
There appears to be little substance to your assertion, but I'd be willing to
look at any sections you feel are pertinent.
Dennis Higbee
Mark Rabuck (GD 1996) <mwra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>a$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu> <47r51l$c...@sloth.swcp.com>
>Distribution:
>
>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
>
>Of course, a "Roman Empire" remained until 1453.
1808, actually, when the last Holy Roman Emperor fell to
Napolean.
-Dennis
Michael Martinez
loop. I've modified it by removing or replacing some of the original snide
remarks as I'm no longer burning under the collar.
If've you've already seen the original, I apologize for wasting bandwidth, but
it appears that a news feed problem led to this article's limited
distribution. On the other hand, as some of my flaming retorts contained
information that I don't see a quick way to reword, I've included some
additional citations. So maybe this isn't a complete waste of bandwidth
after all. I hope not.
In article <47o1aa$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
mwra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)) wrote:
>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
>: In article <47j68f$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
>: mwra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu (Mark Rabuck (GD 1996)) wrote:
>: Here's a quotation from Appendix F. This is a footnote attached to the end
of
>: the paragraph mentioning the names Shadowfax and Wormtongue:
>
>: "This linguistic procedure does not imply that the Rohirrim
>: closely resembled the ancient English otherwise, in culture or
>: art, in weapons or modes of warfare, except in a general way
>: due to their circumstances: a simpler and more primitive
>: people living in contact with a higher and more venerable
>: culture, and occupying lands that had once been part of
>: its domain."
>
>Yes, but neither does Tolkien claim that they were Gothic, as you seem
>intent on proving.
No, that's not my intention at all, as I've already stated elsewhere (not to
mention in the article you just quoted from).
>I believe I have demonstrated numerous cases where
>Tolkien's depiction of Rohirric culture is directly beholden to
>Anglo-Saxon poetry.
No, you have not. To be so, the Rohirric culture would have to relate only to
items which are unique to Anglo-Saxon poetry, and there is really very little
of such influence in Rohirric culture.
>Can you offer counter-examples? Just because the author makes an assertion
>doesn't make it true. After all, the entire LotR is asserted to be a
>translation of the Red Book of Westmarch. Do you believe that too?
Tolkien's footnote was intended to explain a literary device, and the fiction
about the Red Book of Westmarch does not impact on that usage.
>Sources? What sources do you use? The only evidence for axes being
>thrown at Hastings comes from the Bayeux Tapestry. And what do you mean
>by "infantile?" The Anglo-Saxons at Hastings were an even match for the
>mounted Normans until their formation broke.
"Infantile" ==> small. The connotation is difficult to miss.
As for sources of information on the weapons of Anglo-Saxons, we have plenty
of grave-digs and texts referring to those weapons.
>However, I would suggest that grave goods provide the best evidence for
>Anglo-Saxon weaponry in the migration period. Do you dispute that
>spear-points are by far the most abundant type of weaponry found?
Plenty of swords and sword-hilts have been found in the graves. If you want
to really debate this point, start citing texts. I'll cite back.
>: The burial mound at Sutton Hoo was a royal burial with a ship inside of it.
I
>: felt, after I posted that article, that I probably needed to clarify which
>: mounds of which I spoke, and those were the mounds of the dead warriors.
>
>And the difference being? Burial mounds were common to most Germanic
>peoples.
None of the Rohirric burial mounds contained ships. The Rohirrim were not a
seafaring people, and as such their culture was considerably different from
that of a seaborne folk.
>In your original post, you seemed to exlude the Riders from
>having Anglo-Saxon antecedents because they built burial mounds.
I made no such exlusion.
>I was merely pointing out that the mounds at Edoras might be specifically
>modeled after an Anglo-Saxon practice.
They are modelled after a northern European practice that was common to the
Germans, Celts, and Scandinavians.
>: Meduseld is a very generic hall, and closely resembles the model of many
>: ancient northern halls, both historical and poetical. Heorot, in fact, was
>: supposed to be familiar to people throughout the northern world.
>
>But meduseld is an Old English term which means "mead-hall," which is the
>precise term used by the Beowulf-poet to describe Heorot. Certainly,
>there are other feast halls in Germanic literature, but none which play
>so central a role to the action or so personify the plight of the invalid
>king. If you know of any other pertinent sources, please share them.
Again, you're letting Tolkien's use of Old English confuse you on the nature
of the Rohirric culture. In fact, Christopher explains this further in
UNFINISHED TALES, where he writes in the 6th note to "Ciron and Eorl":
"It is an interesting fact, not referred to I believe in any of my
father's writings, that the names of the early kings and princes of
the Northmen and Eotheod are Gothic in form, not Old English
(Anglo-Saxon) as in the case of Leod, Eorl, and the later Rohirrim.
*Vidugavia* is Latinized in spelling, representing Gothic
*Widugauja* ('wood-dweller'), a recorded Gothic name, and
similarly *Vidumavi* Gothic *Widumawi* ('wood-maiden'). *Marhwini*
and *Marhari* contain the Gothic word *marh* 'horse', corresponding
to Old English *mearh*, plural *mearas*, *wini* 'friend' corresponds
to Old English *wine* [win-eh], seen in the names of several of
the Kings of the Mark. Since, as is explained in Append F(II),
the language of Rohan was 'made to resemble ancient English', the
names of the ancestors of the Rohirrim are cast into the forms
of the earliest recorded Germanic language."
Furthermore, in THE TREASON OF ISENGARD, the chapter titled "Notes On Various
Topics" contains the following passage:
"Another group of notes reads:
"Language of Shire = modern English
"Language of Dale = Norse (used by Dwarves of that region)
"Language of Roham = Old English
"'Modern English' is *lingua franca* spoken by all people
(except a few secluded folk like Lorien) -- but little
and ill by orcs."
>: As for whether Theoden was drawn from Hrothgar or not is irrelevant to the
>: point in question, which is whether the Rohirrim were modelled on the
>: Anglo-Saxons. We can grasp for straws in many directions, but we can't
>: overcome the fact that their differences were quite strong.
>
>Au contraire. If Tolkien's models for kingship derive primarily from
>Anglo-Saxon poetry, then I think it is safe to assume that Anglo-Saxon
>culture has a far greater influnce on Rohirric than you posit. Granted,
>there are major cultural differences between the two, but no other
>historical culture comes close to having the impact on Rohirric culture
>than early medieval English.
Tolkien's models for Rohirric kingship are not derived from Anglo-Saxon
poetry. At least, no one has shown that to be the case.
There is no distinctly Anglo-Saxon influence in the elements of the Rohirric
kingship. Even if we allow that Theoden was in some part based on Hrothgar
from Beowulf, Hrothgar was not an Anglo-Saxon king. In fact, he's been
identified with the Norse Hrolfr Kraki.
As for your last point, you still have failed to show how the Anglo-Saxons
resembled in any way the steppe culture of the Rohirrim, whereas I've already
twice demonstrated the similarities between the Rohirrim and the Goths.
Again, that doesn't make the Rohirrim Goths; it simply shows they were not
modelled on the Anglo-Saxons.
There are no precedents in the Anglo-Saxons of Britain for the Muster of
Rohan, or for the horse rituals of Rohan. The various steppe peoples did
provide such precedents, and the best known of the Germanic steppe peoples
were the Goths.
>Horst and Hengist were named by people who lived many generations after
>their lives to establish a settlement myth. We have no contemporary
>evidence for tehir existence. So why would seafarers name the founders
>of their race after horses? You seem to assume a lot about Anglo-Saxon
>history, but I have yet to see you cite a single source.
One would think Bede would be an appropriate source here, so I've gone one
better than you by at least making reference to an ancient (or early medieval
English) writer.
>: Tolkien was very familiar with the Goths, and though I've never said he
>: modelled the Rohirrim after the Goths, if we were to try to establish *who*
>: the actual model was, I'd favor the Goths over the Anglo-Saxons.
>
>Yes, but he was an Anglo-Saxonist. he taught in an English department.
>All of his publications concerned English, not Continental sources. He
>expressed admiration countless times for Old English poetry and culture.
> Hell, he even started writing the Silmarillion as a basis for an
>"English mythology." Nowhere does he establish even remotely similar
>esteem for Gothic culture. Your only argument for the comparisonb is
>that the Goths rode horses (note that only the Ostragoths were
>cavalrymen). This is hardly conclusive.
As I demonstrated above, Tolkien used Gothic names in his histories.
He studied Gothic, he read Gothic, he understood Gothic, and he even taught
about it when it became pertinent in his lectures. Gothic was the first
Germanic language written down, and the study of Gothic is a vital step in the
career of any philologist who studies ancient Germanic languages.
Also, it was Visigothic Calvary that helped turn back the Huns in Gaul, not
Ostrogothic cavalry. In fact, the Visigoths had an effective cavalry
tradition right up until 710 AD, when they decided to fall apart before the
Moorish invasion of Spain.
>:You've clearly missed the point. Tolkien didn't want the Rohirrim to be
>:"Gothic" -- he wanted them to be the idealized Northmen. The most famous
>:Germanic legends are alleged to have derived from a real war between the
>:Goths (under Hunnish rule) and the Burgundians.
>
>Do you mean the Niebelungenlied? This was an Old High German, not a
>Gothic source.
I never said or implied the legend was Gothic in origin and I don't appreciate
your misrepresenting the facts on this matter. It was Burgundian in origin.
I simply referred to the war.
>I hope that I have clearly demonstrated that all of the elements which you
>assert to be Gothic over Anglo-Saxon in fact pertain to the English as well.
You have not clearly demonstrated any such points at all. You keep demanding
citations, ignoring those I've given. You're posts showed little knowledge of
ancient Germans in general or any of the non-Anglo-Saxons in particular.
>: The mythic progression from Gothic tradition to Anglo-Saxon and
>Scandinavian tradition was very significant for Tolkien.
>
>Sources? This seems to prove my above point. How can you argue for a
>Germanic archetype in one sentence and a cultural progression in the
>next? By the way, the Anglo-Saxons were NOT descendants of the Goths, as
>any student of Old English or early medieval history should know.
Again I point you to the passages cited above.
Tolkien used the Gothic language to represent the language of the early
Northmen. He did this because Gothic was "documented" (i.e., written down)
centuries before other Germanic tongues were.
Next he used Anglo-Saxon to represent the language of the Rohirrim and Old
Norse to represent the language of the Men of Dale of Esgaroth (of which we
have only the names of Dwarves, a city, and a few Men).
Old Norse was derived from dialects which in origin was very close to the
dialects of the Angles and Jutes. The great phonetic shift of the 6th-7th
Centuries gave rise to what eventually became Old Norse.
The linguistic parallel Tolkien created was a brilliant literary device, and
one which flew right over your head. He wasn't suggesting that Gothic was the
antecedent of Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse; he was simply using the ancientness
for the feel of it.
>: "Having gone so far in my attempt to modernize and make familiar the
>: language and name of Hobbits, I found myself involved in a further
>: process. The Mannish languages that were related to the Westron
>: should, it seemed to me, be turned into forms related to English.
>: The language of Rohan I have accordingly made to resemble ancient
>: English, since it was related both (more distantly) to the Common
>: Speech, and (very closely) to the former tongue of the northern
>: Hobbits, and was in comparison with the Westron archaic."
>
>This is irrelevant to your point (see my argument above) and in fact
>supports my own contention that Old English culture formed the basis for
>Rohirric.
This passage in no way suggests the Rohirric culture is based on Old English
culture. Rather, it explains the model used to represent the relationships
posited between the various language of Middle-earth's Edainic peoples. And I
again must point you to the passages cited above.
The Numenoreans are the mythical antecedents to the Anglo-Saxons, and not the
Rohirrim.
>: The linguistic device here stated to have been used for effect has been
>: extrapolated by many (including you) as a justification for the
>: identification of the Rohirrim with the Anglo-Saxons. After all,
>: the myths of Middle-earth are supposed to be an English mythology, right?
>: And yet, it was the Numenoreans whom Tolkien focused on, not the Rohirrim.
>: The Rohirrim were a people of collateral descent and were not central to
>: the theme at all. They were even late-comers to the stage.
>
>But this is not a reason why Tolkien would not incorporate elements of a
>culture he loved into his work.
And if it can be shown that the Anglo-Saxon culture somehow is represented in
the steppe-culture of the Rohirrim, you may have a point.
>: The Goths did not overrun the empire. Where did you get this idea? They
>: demanded and eventually received lands for kingdoms, but these kingdoms
>: were small until the Visigoths established themselves at Toulouse (under
>: Imperial sponsorship). None of the Gothic kingdoms was unauthorized until
>: the Franks drove the Visigoths into Spain. In fact, the Ostrogothic
>: Kingdom of Italy was technically still a part of the empire until the war
>: in the 6th Century.
>:
>:Theodoric recognized Roman Law and Imperial suzerainty.
>
>OK, I can't even maintain the veneer of politeness anymore. Who wiped
>out Valens at Adrianople? Who sacked Rome in 410? Who ousted Romulus
>Augustulus, thereby officially ending the Enpire, in 476. Read some
>history, man, before you play historian. Your assertions are baseless
>and misleading.
More Roman troops were wiped out in the Teutoberg disaster under Varus in the
1st Century AD than died at Adrianople. Furthermore, had the Goths truly
overrun the empire, we would have some information about their taking of major
cities like Alexandria and regions like Asia Minor, Northern Africa, and the
rest of the empire. But that never happened.
Let's consider a few facts about Adrianople:
1) Only two-thirds of the Roman troops were killed
2) The Goths failed to capture the city. In fact, they
were repulsed with heavy casualties.
3) Two other cities in the region, Philippopolis-Plovdiv
and Perinthus were equally able to hold out the Goths.
4) The drive toward Constantinople failed. They didn't
even take the capitol city of the empire you said
they overran.
5) The Goths failed to secure the imperial treasure. They
were so few in number they couldn't even attack one
city and sack the imperial camp at the same time.
In fact, Fritigern's army began to come apart soon after the victory at
Adrianople. It was mostly a waste of human life, as it accomplished nothing
for the Goths and did (in the end) very little harm to the empire.
Some of the Goths who fought at Adrianople had in fact been living in the
empire for years by that time. They didn't all just get into the empire after
the onset of the Huns in or about 370 AD.
As for the sack of Rome in 410, it was conducted by people who had been living
under Roman rule for generations. Alaric was trying to establish a homeland
for his people inside the empire and the imperials were trying to break up the
Goths. He wound up in Italy because it was weak enough that he could make
some military points.
But the events at Adrianople (in 378) and at Rome (in 410) hardly constitute
an overrunning of the empire.
>Why don't you name a reference. While there is no accepted date for the
>inception of the Middle Ages, the end of Rome (410 or 476, depending on
>your preference) makes a good basis. Would you argue that Augustine and
>Jerome were not medieval?
Here I must point out that you offered no references in return, and in fact
you first said the 5th century was in the medieval period and then you back
off and say, well, it varies.
>OK, I've cited _Beowulf_, "The Battle of Maldon," Howe's _Migration and
>Mythmaking_. Have you even read an Old English poem?
You named "Beowulf" but offered no citations, really.
As for Old English poems I've read, we can count "Beowulf", "The Battle of
Maldon", "Deor", "Widsith", and one or two others whose names escape me at the
moment. I notice you did not mention "Deor" or "Widsith", both fairly
well-known Old English poems.
>I am fluent in both Latin and Old English. I have spent the last six years
>in graduate study of Anglo-Saxon history at Yale. I'm not claiming that this
>makes me the sole expert on the field, but I think it certainly qualifies me
>as being able to form learned opinions.
I originally had some flaming remarks here about your knowledge of history.
I'll say now only that you failed to impress me in that respect.
>Is this coming from the same person who didn't know Sutton Hoo was a
>burial mound or did not know that the Anglo-Saxons' primary weapon was
>the spear?
This is another of those infuriating fictions which led me to flame you in the
original version of this article.
Not only did I know it was a burial mound, I knew it was excavated in 1939 (a
little late to be influencing Tolkien's conception of the Anglo-Saxons, by the
way). I also didn't overlook the fact there was a ship in that burial mound.
As for the primary weapons of the Anglo-Saxons, they used spears, swords, and
hand-axes, and there are numerous archaeological texts which state this. I
can list a few if that's necessary, but it's really so commonly stated
throughout the literature that I don't want to do that.
Also, here's a citation from THE TWO TOWERS:
"Their horses were of great stature, strong and clean-limbed;
their gret coats glistened, their long tails flowed in the
wind, their manes were braided on their proud necks. The
Men that rode them matched them well: tall and long-limbed;
their hair, flaxen-pale, flowed under their light helms,
and streamed in long braids behind them; their faces were
stern and keen. In their hands were tall spears of ash,
painted shields were slung at their backs, long swords
were at their belts, their burnished shirts of mail hung down
upon their knees."
Note the long swords at their belts and the "flaxen-pale" hair which is
braided. These guys sound more like Vikings on horseback than anything else.
The mail shirts are a distinctly "Medieval" quality I had previously
overlooked in making a comment about what period they seem to parallel from
true history.
>: Also, the cup-offering was in no way an English-only custom. Having named
>: yourself a historian, you should know better than to misrepresent a
>: wide-spread and well-documented northern custom as something which is
>: attested mainly in English sources. Any cheap book on the Vikings, for
>: instance, will usually include pictures of their drinking cups and a
>: discussion of how important drinking and feasting was to them and other
>: northern peoples.
>
>I do not read "cheap books." Why will you not respond to my argument
>that Beowulf formed the primary model for Rohirric culture?
I have, of course, made such responses and in articles previous to this one.
>I never argued that cup-bearing was exclusively Anglo-Saxon, as you
>claimed, but that Old English cup bearing is more likely the antecedent
>for the scene in Meduseld than other Germanic sources.
Why should Tolkien ignore the other sources he is said to have used for this
one point? People have no problem quoting the Eddas, for instance, as
inspiration for his names and locations ("Mirkwood" ring any bells with you?).
And yet, suddenly, the Rohirrim are an "English-only" derivation.
But we can look at "Beowulf" carefully and note a few things right off:
1) It was recorded in Old English
2) It is set in Scandinavia
3) It mentions Danes and Geats
4) The only figures thought to be historical are Scandinavians:
Hygelac is thought to be Geoffrey of Tour's Chlochilaich, the
Danish king who raided France, and Hrothgar is thought to be
the Norse Hrolfr Kraki.
5) The cultural elements in the poem (the hall, the warrior
bands, the feasting, the cup-offering, etc.) apply at least
as much to Scandinavian traditions as to any English traditions
There is nothing distinctly Anglo-Saxon about this story. In fact, other Old
English poems, such as "Deor" and "Widsith", with which Tolkien was also
acquainted, went out of their ways to mention peoples other than the
Anglo-Saxons. So, using the poetry to base a conclusion that the Rohirrim
were modelled on the Anglo-Saxons presents one with some interesting problems.
>: If you want a historical reference to look up, consider the story of the
>: Lombards and the Gepids. That's pretty famous and if you don't know of it
>: then your knowledge of ancient German history and customs is somewhat
>: lacking.
>
>And to what story are you referring? Can you not even name it? Some
>"expert" you are.
Hm, here I ask you if you know a certain famous story without naming it and
you turn that around to accuse me of not knowing the story.
When the Lombards conquered the Gepids, the Lombard king forced the daughter
of the Gepid king to drink from her father's skull when he forced her to marry
him. The wedding cup was an ancient German tradition. The skull-cup was a
sick twist.
>: You seem to be unaware or conveniently overlooking the traditions
>: concerning Frumgar and Fram (the older kings, mentioned outside of LOTR, I
>: leave out). Recall that Eowyn gave Meriadoc the horn from the hoard of
>: Scatha.
>
>: Eorl was relatively late in the line of the kings revered by the Rohirrim.
>
>And is known as the "First King of the Rohirrim" in the Tale of Years.
>Sounds like a founder of a line to me.
The above passage is presented out of context, so I here present the other
paragraphs which precede it:
>: I should also point out that the Rohirrim, very much like the Goths, had a
>: tradition of ancient royalty among them, whereas the Saxons did not, and
>: even the Angles didn't always adhere to their ancient monarchy, but set up
>: petty kingdoms in Britain in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
>
>How many barrows were there in front of Edoras? Eorl was the first king,
>who dated from about 5 centuries before the War of the Ring. Hardly an
>"ancient" line by Middle-earth's standards.
Again, the Rohirrim were revering an ancient House which did not start with
Eorl, but which in fact went back more than a thousand years (at the time of
the War of the Ring) and which went back all the way to Vidugavia.
The compares well with the legend of the Amali.
>: >Furthermore, what evidence is there for ancient kingship among the Goths?
>: >Tacitus, our earliest source for all Germanic peoples, refers to the
>: >oppressiveness, rather than the antiquity of the Gothic kings.
>
>: First of all, Tacitus is not the earliest reference for Germanic peoples,
>: so your knowledge of ancient German history is here demonstrated to be
>: sadly lacking. Secondly, Tacitus barely mentions any peoples associated
>: with the Goths of history. He does mention the Gotones.
>
>Duuhhh, who do you think he meant? And what earlier sources do you know
>that meantion the Goths? Yes, other sources mention the Germanic
>peoples, but not the goths. Read a book, please.
*You* said Tacitus is "our ealiest source for all Germanic peoples", and I was
responding to that statement. Caesar, Poseidonius, and Livy (to name three)
all predate Tacitus and offer more ancient information concerning the Germans.
And Tacitus did not catalogue all the Germanic peoples.
As for the Gotones versus the Goths, where did I suggest there was no
connection? The Baltic peoples were not included in Tacitus' discussion of
customs and traditions, as he had no direct knowledge of those peoples. He
mentioned some of the northern tribes had kings and used ships, though
archaeology has shown us those were not sailed vessels.
>: Thirdly, even Tacitus acknowledges that the Germans had ancient noble
>: families from whom their kings and warleaders were selected.
>
>But he cannot attest their antiquity, can he?
Hm. First you put Tacitus out as the most ancient and unimpeachable source of
information on the Germans, and then you impeach his credibility.
>: Alaric came of the Amali, the historical family which ruled one the
>: precursor tribes of the Goths in the 4rd Century AD. The Amali were said
>: to have been quite ancient, as well, though the history associated with
>: them is considered to be flagrantly false prior to the 4th Century, though
>: still bearing some accurate notions of the migration.
>
>: You *are* aware of the Amali, aren't you?
>
>What does this have to do with kingship? Just because Alaric came from a
>noble line does not mean he was of royal blood. And what access do you
>have to higher knowledge that supercedes what we know from the written
>sources?
There were two royal families among the Goths. The Amali were one of these.
The family was said to have provided kings for some of the Gothic peoples
since their migration began. The earliest kings, of course, are not
considered to be historical, but Ermanaric, the great Gothic king of the 3rd
Century, was an Amal.
So, Alaric came of an ancient royal family. And this information all comes
from written sources.
>Perhaps you should read it as well, far more critically than you seem to
>have. And I do mean critically, for Wolfram's book was not altogether
>well-received. You should also read some Anglo-Saxon history, if
>you are going to be making baseless claims about their culture.
I'm aware that Wolfram proposed some unusual deductions, but I happen to like
them. I have other books that deal with Gothic and Anglo-Saxon history.
I've deleted the comments that ended the post, as they really don't seem
pertinent at this point in time. We essentially traded snide remarks.
Michael Martinez
>
>I sincerely and humbly apologize for my tone in previous posts on this
>thread. I used to brag to my friends about the polite discourse on this
>group, and now I find myself guilty of a sin that I have publicly decried
>in the past. I admit that my zeal for both Tolkien and Anglo-Saxon
>history got the better of me, and I allowed myself to be drawn into a
>rather contentious debate. Tolkien scholarship is not served by
>pettiness, and I fear that such a tone might discourage other people from
>posting in the future. Please do not allow my vanity and arrogance to
>hinder cordial discussion.
As I explained in email, your orginal post angered me and I reacted out of
anger. I've no more interest in being nasty than you suggest you are.
>Mr. Martinez, you clearly want to win this argument far, far more than I
>do.
However, this was uncalled for. It's not a matter of wanting to win an
argument. I corrected you on some historical points and disagreed with you on
some interpretative points concerning THE LORD OF THE RINGS. There is no
foundation for your assertion that I want to win this argument badly.
There is no "winning" or "losing" in an argument, except that all are
diminished thereby.
>I happily concede to you all of your points, if such will make you
>happy.
Nor is an appeal to my vanity hardly called for. Undoubtedly some people
think I should be offering an apology as well just to show I want to get along
amicably with you and everyone else, but your every post in this thread
includes provocative remarks such as this one. I've no interest in being
right at all costs. But I certainly didn't react strongly to the others who
voiced opinions similar to your own.
The difference between your posts and theirs is that you use a subtlety of
language which I find offensive, and perhaps you don't realize it comes across
this way.
>I am unlikely to convnce you, and you will not ever persuade me of our
>respective interpretations of Toklien's work or early medieval history.
>Let us agree to disagree. In an earlier post, you made reference to the
>Inklings. In future postings, let us attempt to emulate their
>collegiality, if not always their erudition.
We are not the Inklings and unlikely it seems to me is the prospect we will
find such congeniality as we have read they enjoyed. They spoke a different
language.
If in the future you and I come to disagree over some point, I hope it won't
get out of hand as things did this time around.
I would, in fact, be happy to discuss elements of Beowulf and other poems that
people feel have strongly influenced THE LORD OF THE RINGS. That doesn't mean
I want to lecture the world on "the way it should be", but rather that I'm
willing to present points I feel are valid and to consider points presented by
others and to debate the merits of all sides.
Michael Martinez
>Distribution:
>
>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
>
>Tolkeinian...
Mark sent me email explaining this was accidentally posted to the newsgroup,
and I've replied via email as well.
I won't answer these points in the news groups.
Michael Martinez
jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>In article <6...@rhyolite.win-uk.net> ja...@rhyolite.win-uk.net (John Jones)
writes:
>
>>The "men who side with Sauron" are non-white simply because
>>they are non-European.
>
>Obviously.
What does that make the Dunlendings, I wonder, who sided with Saruman and thus
served Sauron's purposes?
What does that make the Men of Umbar, who were in part descended from
Numenoreans and Gondorians (remember, there was an influx of folk from Gondor
after Eldacar recovered his throne)?
By extension, what does that make the people of Gondor, if not non-Whites?
Why, the entire story is about non-Whites!
To suggest the enemies were non-white is ridiculous.
>
>>Minas Tirith equates to Constantinople, which was on the very eastern edge
>>of Europe.
>
>Really now? And what do you base this on?
Actually, the parallels are quite strong. Minas Tirith was the center of a
remnant of an ancient and once large empire, just as Constantinople was, and
Minas Tirith generally defended the northern lands from the south and the
east, as Constantinople/Byzantium helped defend Europe from the Middle East
and Asia.
>>Thus, 'swertings' were Arabs and/or Indians; the
>>"black men like half-trolls" were Africans.
>
>I have no problems with this. As I said he had a very
>unusual view of race.
Well, he certainly made up quite a few races that had no parallels in real
history. Perhaps he wasn't as concerned with race as some here think.
And how, exactly, does one distinguish between a group whose idea of
government is to have the state control everything and imprison some of its
citizens for ethnic reasons and a group whose idea of government is to have
the state control everything and imprison some of its citizens for ethnic
reasons?
Communists or fascists, take your pick: they both ran their countries that
way. The Nazis, of course, were responsible for the Holocaust, but Stalin
certainly slaughtered a lot of the people under his rule as well. So, how
does one justify moving Tolkien toward either group philosophically as a means
of moving him away from the other?
Graydon
: In article <jbask1.246...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>,
: Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
: >Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
: >have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
: >have had to change a word?
: I don't know how strict Nazi censorship was, but I do think that
: the ideal of many races living in peace with each other is un-Nazi.
: in favor of complex living systems. I don't think Nazis would
: have much use for "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer",
: nor for the idea that heroism is something you evoke when you must,
: but not the basic standard of value.
Or, for that matter, that the line of true kings is the result of
crossbreeding with faries. (Which is who the elves _are_, the inhabitants
of Faerie, it's just that Tolkien stopped calling them that (in favour of
'Eldar') because of the sticky-cutesy connotations 'fairy' had in his day.
:Lord of the Rings: is set in a created universe; man has a fallen
nature. Men exposed to diabolic influence (Morgoth, Sauron, their
minions) _cannot_ withstand the moral temptation without access to
revelation/true teaching; that's a pretty basic Catholic tenent.
Oh, and Joseph? The single greatest villan in :tLotR: is a (lily pale)
wizard. The heros (counting Sam, Frodo, and Smeagol/Gollum collectively)
are hobbits; hobbits are naturally brown skinned and ruddy.
--
saun...@qlink.queensu.ca | Monete me si non anglice loquobar.
Louis Epstein
: In article <47lfkh$h...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
: >>The men who side with Sauron, at least in LoTR, are almost
: >>uniformly non-White.
: >"...almost uniformly non-White"??? Would you please clarify this?
: When a group of Men comes to the aid of Sauron in LotR they are
: just what I said nearly always not white. Some obviously White
: people do help Sauron but by and large they are described as
: being either Asians or at best Mediterranian. Look at the ambush
: Faramir sets for the allies of Sauron marching to Mordor. How
: white are they? Are they in fact the only people of colour to
: appear in LotR? This however is not an issue I wish to discuss.
: Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
: have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
: have had to change a word?
Well,take a look at his impassioned refusal to give the statement of
racial purity his German publishers for THE HOBBIT wanted before they
would publish,and his side criticism to his British publishers of the
"lunatic laws" and "wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine".
Thomas Koenig
>In article <6...@rhyolite.win-uk.net> ja...@rhyolite.win-uk.net (John Jones) writes:
>>Minas Tirith equates to
>>Constantinople, which was on the very eastern edge of
>>Europe.
>
>Really now? And what do you base this on?
There are quite a number of paralells, if you consider it...
An imperial city, a giant fortress, holding half of what formerly
was a giant empire. The other half has gone under.
Does this sound like Minas Tirith, or Constantinople? Take your pick...
Joseph Askew
>I don't know how strict Nazi censorship was, but I do think that
>the ideal of many races living in peace with each other is un-Nazi.
But many races were not living in peace. Indeed the struggle
between the Orcs and the Elves is on going and never ending.
Well not quite never ending, JRRT never does tell us what was
going to happen to all those Orcs after the fall of Mordor
but given the general lack of Orcish prisoners I would not
hold out much of a candle for them.
>Also, purity was one of the fundamental Nazi ideas, and LOTR is
>in favor of complex living systems.
It is also big on pollution. Environmental by and large which
was a Nazi concern but also on moral, intellectual and even
there are odd touches of racial pollution.
>I don't think Nazis would
>have much use for "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer",
I do myself. This comes right out of mediaeval theories on the
power of King. Holy Charisma of which the Hitler Cult was just
a modern version. Hitler did everything else according to the
German Propaganda Ministry, why not heal?
>nor for the idea that heroism is something you evoke when you must,
>but not the basic standard of value.
This is a bit English I have to admit but then it is not so
far off. LotR certainly has a strong element of the heroic
which is just what you expect and nothing extraordinary. Only
the Nazis were fond of it too.
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>Or, for that matter, that the line of true kings is the result of
>crossbreeding with faries. (Which is who the elves _are_, the inhabitants
>of Faerie, it's just that Tolkien stopped calling them that (in favour of
>'Eldar') because of the sticky-cutesy connotations 'fairy' had in his day.
What you mean that the Nazis would have had no time with the
idea that some men are genetically disposed to rule? What a
shock to the system. The only problem here is that elves are
not men. Not a big problem really. Elves are to humans as, I
suppose the Germans could argue, Germans are to the rest of
humanity. Just as some are destined to rule by virtue of their
genes so are the Ayrans. You calling this something anti-Nazi?
>:Lord of the Rings: is set in a created universe; man has a fallen
>nature. Men exposed to diabolic influence (Morgoth, Sauron, their
>minions) _cannot_ withstand the moral temptation without access to
>revelation/true teaching; that's a pretty basic Catholic tenent.
That is but then the idea that some races are born good and
others are born evil is not.
>Oh, and Joseph? The single greatest villan in :tLotR: is a (lily pale)
>wizard.
Sauron? Where does it mention his colour?
>The heros (counting Sam, Frodo, and Smeagol/Gollum collectively)
>are hobbits; hobbits are naturally brown skinned and ruddy.
Tanned and ruddy. They are the most English of them all.
They just get out in the sun a lot.
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>>have had to change a word?
>Probably not much. Just that little scene where the Ring goes into the
>Fire--that would have to go, I think.
Why? The book probably does show too much pity to Smeagol
but it wouls still be suitable for children I would think.
>But what _is_ your point? That if the Nazis wouldn't have censored it, it
>must be a pro-Nazi work?
No just that if the book was written in deliberate opposition
to the Nazis don't you think they might have noticed? If there
is a form of totalitarianism that the book criticises it is not
Fascism. Clearly. It may be Communism or there might be no form
of contemporary political commentary at all. I think it is more
likely to be the former.
Joseph
John Jones
In article <jbask1.249...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>, Joseph Askew (jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au) writes:
>>Minas Tirith equates to
>>Constantinople, which was on the very eastern edge of
>>Europe.
>
>Really now? And what do you base this on?
>
I've just had a quick look at my copy of LoTR, but can't
find the reference; but it was in the place where Tolkien
said that middle-Earth was "the North-West of the Old
World" (from memory). In this, it was said that Mordor
was in the (equivalent) position of the Carpathian
Mountains, and Minas Tirith was (about) Constantinople.
Middle-Earth is only an equivalent of Europe; I suppose I
shouldn't have been so definite! I'll also have to try
and re-read the reference...
###################################################################
John Jones ja...@rhyolite.win-uk.net
Birmingham
England
Thomas Petersen
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <47lfkh$h...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
> >>>The men who side with Sauron, at least in LoTR, are almost
> >>>uniformly non-White.
> >
> >>"...almost uniformly non-White"??? Would you please clarify this?
> >
> >When a group of Men comes to the aid of Sauron in LotR they are
> >just what I said nearly always not white. Some obviously White
> >people do help Sauron but by and large they are described as
> >being either Asians or at best Mediterranian.
Actually the Easteners look something like Vikings with red beards,
axes and all that.
>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>have had to change a word?
>
Obviously we'll never know how LotR would have fared, but we do
know that _The Hobbit_ didn't get through the Nazi censors at the
time. The reason was that Tolkien simply refused on principle to send
them a letter stating that he wasn't a Jew or had any Jewish ancestors.
I suppose this should bury any claims that Tolkien ever had Nazi
sympathies as well.
Thomas
Richard Rostrom
: In article <47kh2r$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
: Trister K <tris...@aol.com> wrote:
: >You know, this is a pet peeve, but when Kipling wrote "lesser breeds
: >without the Law" he was refering to the GERMANS not various third world
: >peoples. Read the poem.
: Really? I have read the poem, and it's pretty clear to me that by "lesser
: breeds without the law", Kipling is referring to those who do not know or
: honor the laws of the God of Abraham.
Read it more carefully then. Circa 1900, Germany was developing a strong
militaristic strain. The idea that force is its own justification, that
might literally does make right, was becoming quite popular.
There's a famous book called _Germany in the Next War_, published by a
Junker colonel about 1912. The author stated that "the outcome of a war
is always biologically correct, because the stronger side prevails."
Which as much as to say there is no right or wrong, no "Law".
: If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
: Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe--
: Such boasting as the Gentiles use
: Or lesser breeds without the Law--
: Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
: Lest we forget, lest we forget!
German militarists of that age used to say that Germany didn't need to be
right, they were strong enough to _take_ what they wanted. Does that seem
"drunk with sight of power"?
: For heathen heart that puts her trust
: In reeking tube and iron shard--
: All valiant dust that builds on dust,
: And guarding calls not Thee to guard--
: For frantic boast and foolish word
: Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!
This was a reminder that real strength is in moral character, not in
dreadnoughts or machine guns: something the militarists had forgotten in
their excitement over their new blow-'em-up toys - especially the Germans.
It certainly does _not_ seem as though he was thinking of non-Christian
peoples - in his view a pious Hindu served the Law as well as any Christian.
"...Purun Bhagat salaamed reverently to the Law, because he knew the
value of it, and was seeking for a Law of his own." (The Miracle of Purun
Bhagat)
The view that "the lesser breeds" refers to Germany is, BTW, almost
universally accepted among critics.
Rich Rostrom | There is something the matter with our bloody
R-Ro...@bgu.edu | ships today. Steer two points toward the enemy.
(312) CRIMINY | - Vice-Admiral Sir David Beatty, RN, at Jutland.
Michael Martinez
>In article <47suts$h...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
>>a$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu> <47r51l$c...@sloth.swcp.com>
>>Distribution:
>>
>>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
>>
>
>1808, actually, when the last Holy Roman Emperor fell to
>Napolean.
Actually, Mark Rabuck made the comment quoted above, in a reply to one of my
articles. I would not have thought about the Holy Roman Empire connection,
though. That's an interesting perspective on the issue.
Michael Martinez
pete...@fys-hp-1.risoe.dk (Thomas Petersen) wrote:
>
>Actually the Easteners look something like Vikings with red beards,
>axes and all that.
The Variags of Khand look that way, but they were only one group of
Easterlings. There are (to my knowledge) no close descriptions of any of the
other Easterlings.
Joseph Askew
>: Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>: have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>: have had to change a word?
>Well,take a look at his impassioned refusal to give the statement of
>racial purity his German publishers for THE HOBBIT wanted before they
>would publish,and his side criticism to his British publishers of the
>"lunatic laws" and "wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine".
What does this have to do with the issue at hand? There is no
accusation here that Tolkien was a Nazi. Nor does the fact
that he had problems with his publishers mean anything at all.
Heinlein had problems with his publishers. Does that mean he
opposed the Free Market? Suppose Tolkien was just outraged
anyone would think he was Jewish. Or perhaps someone in his
family was. Would that prove a thing?
Joseph
Sauer, Alan Lewis
: In article <47u12f$h...@icarus.convex.com> ca...@news.eng.convex.com (Peter
Cash) writes:
: >Probably not much. Just that little scene where the Ring goes into the
: >Fire--that would have to go, I think.
: Why? The book probably does show too much pity to Smeagol
: but it wouls still be suitable for children I would think.
<cough>
I think he means Frodo's not following orders, here. He's
striking out on his own, having independent thoughts, nay!
even attempting to overthrow an established regime. I
think the Nazis might have had a few problems with that.
: >But what _is_ your point? That if the Nazis wouldn't have censored it, it
: >must be a pro-Nazi work?
: No just that if the book was written in deliberate opposition
: to the Nazis don't you think they might have noticed? If there
: is a form of totalitarianism that the book criticises it is not
: Fascism. Clearly. It may be Communism or there might be no form
: of contemporary political commentary at all. I think it is more
: likely to be the former.
Didn't Tolkien himself say that the events in tLotR bore no
relation whatsoever to World War II? I don't remember
exactly where I read this (alas for the vagaries of memory).
I think, perhaps, it was in the Prologue (y'know, somewhere
in the vicinity of the pipe-weed discussion). He was quite
bitter about the war in general as I recall.
On the "Clearly." What, you don't consider Mordor to be a
fascist regime? The regimented, militaristic Orc society?
The central government that not only controlled the actions
of citizens but their very _minds?_ The racial superiority
ethic of the Uruk-Hai? Maybe you've got a different definition
of fascism than I do, or maybe I'm remembering my government
class wrong.
===============================================================
Alan Sauer Lord Rabbit
"Hey, we aren't _all_ cute little fuzzy critters, ya know."
Louis Epstein
: In article <480ao8$g...@linet01.li.net>, bn...@li.net (Dennis Higbee) wrote:
: >In article <47suts$h...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
: >Mark Rabuck (GD 1996) <mwra...@minerva.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
: >>a$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu> <47r51l$c...@sloth.swcp.com>
: >>Distribution:
: >>
: >>Michael Martinez (mma...@basis.com) wrote:
: >>
: >>Of course, a "Roman Empire" remained until 1453.
: >
: >1808, actually, when the last Holy Roman Emperor fell to
: >Napolean.
1806 is when he laid down the Imperial crown(which,as far as I am
concerned,the Electors have an inescapable obligation to fill to this day);
he remained Emperor of Austria until his death...it was not a defeat but
a political-tactical move.
: Actually, Mark Rabuck made the comment quoted above, in a reply to one of my
: articles. I would not have thought about the Holy Roman Empire connection,
: though. That's an interesting perspective on the issue.
My ideas on an HRE alternate history are not relevant to this newsgroup...
though devised in partnership with a fellow Tolkienophile/monarchist.
Joseph Askew
>What does that make the Dunlendings, I wonder,
>who sided with Saruman and thus served Sauron's purposes?
That is a very good question. However they did not side with
Sauron only with Saruman and are repeatedly said to be tricked
or deluded. Unlike the others who are said to harbour deep and
long standing hatreds that meant they went on fighting after
the orcs ran. Of course unlike the orcs the Dunlendings were
actually allowed to surrender.
>What does that make the Men of Umbar, who were in part descended from
>Numenoreans and Gondorians (remember, there was an influx of folk from Gondor
>after Eldacar recovered his throne)?
Actually I think you will find the Corsairs of Umbar are said
to be Haradrim or whatever the correct spelling is.
>By extension, what does that make the people of Gondor, if not non-Whites?
>Why, the entire story is about non-Whites!
No it is not. However you will notice the long running concern
with racial defilement through intermarriage with "lesser" men.
Well women mostly I would think.
>To suggest the enemies were non-white is ridiculous.
No it is not. They are repeatedly so described.
>>>Thus, 'swertings' were Arabs and/or Indians; the
>>>"black men like half-trolls" were Africans.
>>I have no problems with this. As I said he had a very
>>unusual view of race.
>Well, he certainly made up quite a few races that had no parallels in real
>history. Perhaps he wasn't as concerned with race as some here think.
He made up some. Orcs for instance. However these were usually
given physical descriptions that match well with modern races.
ie they were "sallow", "squint eyed". Even the "Africans" are
described as being like trolls. Nice to see where he puts them
in the scheme of things.
>And how, exactly, does one distinguish between a group whose idea of
>government is to have the state control everything and imprison some of its
>citizens for ethnic reasons and a group whose idea of government is to have
>the state control everything and imprison some of its citizens for ethnic
>reasons?
Easily. Only a fool would confuse the Nazis with the Communists.
>Communists or fascists, take your pick: they both ran their countries that
>way.
No they did not.
>The Nazis, of course, were responsible for the Holocaust, but Stalin
>certainly slaughtered a lot of the people under his rule as well.
Did Stalin now? There is a world of difference between the Nazis
and the Communists. The fact that the Nazis didn't have very long
to kill everyone they wanted should not obscure this fact. So they
both killed a lot of people. So did the British during the war. In
India about 3.5 million in Bengal alone. I suppose that makes the
British and the Nazis equivalent in your eyes.
>So, how
>does one justify moving Tolkien toward either group philosophically as a means
>of moving him away from the other?
I have no idea. I am not doing it so I fail to see the issue.
Joseph
Louis Epstein
: In article <483h20$g...@news.uni-c.dk>,
: pete...@fys-hp-1.risoe.dk (Thomas Petersen) wrote:
: >
: >Actually the Easteners look something like Vikings with red beards,
: >axes and all that.
: The Variags of Khand look that way, but they were only one group of
: Easterlings. There are (to my knowledge) no close descriptions of any of the
: other Easterlings.
Hmmm,I don't recall it being explicitly stated that Variags were humans at
all,their mention could be interpreted as their also being in a host that
included humans.
Joseph Askew
>Actually the Easteners look something like Vikings with red beards,
>axes and all that.
Where are they described as having red beards? I would
assume they were meant to be Russians at best myself.
>>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>>have had to change a word?
>Obviously we'll never know how LotR would have fared,
Well we can guess. A child reading it would have to learn
that some parts of it are not true (ie there are no elves)
but think what else he would learn. Heros all have blue eyes.
Non-aryans are by and large in league with nasty people. To
consistently refuse to take sub-humans prisoner is fine. Some
people are genetically superior to others. The genetically
superior have a right to rule. Interbreeding with lesser races
is a mistake and a source of corruption and decline. I even
have some doubts about the orcs. It was the impression I got
as a child that they would all be killed at the end after the
final battle and the fall of Mordor. There certainly is a very
strong impression of genocide at any rate. Where did they all go?
>but we do
>know that _The Hobbit_ didn't get through the Nazi censors at the
>time. The reason was that Tolkien simply refused on principle to send
>them a letter stating that he wasn't a Jew or had any Jewish ancestors.
>I suppose this should bury any claims that Tolkien ever had Nazi
>sympathies as well.
If anyone was making this claim it might. Or, on the other hand,
it might show that Tolkien could not prove he was an Aryan. Or
that he felt it was impertinent of the publishers. Trouble with
publishers does not mean a lot in itself. If he really objected
to the Nazis he would have insisted that it not be published in
Germany. A bit unreasonable perhaps but he didn't do it.
Joseph
Jon Sloman
>In article <480nau$4...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
[snip]
>>The Nazis, of course, were responsible for the Holocaust, but Stalin
>>certainly slaughtered a lot of the people under his rule as well.
>
>Did Stalin now? There is a world of difference between the Nazis
>and the Communists. The fact that the Nazis didn't have very long
>to kill everyone they wanted should not obscure this fact. So they
>both killed a lot of people. So did the British during the war. In
>India about 3.5 million in Bengal alone. I suppose that makes the
>British and the Nazis equivalent in your eyes.
I was idly scanning through this thread with an increasing sense of
disbelief when I came upon the piece of garbage above. Documentation,
please. Dates (which war ?). Locations of the gulags/extermination
camps. Names of those responsible. Put up or shut up.
Jon
Ken Arromdee
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>but think what else he would learn. Heros all have blue eyes.
>Non-aryans are by and large in league with nasty people. To
>consistently refuse to take sub-humans prisoner is fine. Some
>people are genetically superior to others. The genetically
>superior have a right to rule.
Genes don't even exist in Tolkien. Sheesh.
--
Ken Arromdee (arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, karr...@nyx.cs.du.edu;
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~arromdee)
"Any creature who would disguise itself as a bone, obviously has no sense of
fair play!" -- Superboy Annual #1
Michael Martinez
jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>In article <480nau$4...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez)
writes:
>
>>who sided with Saruman and thus served Sauron's purposes?
>
>That is a very good question. However they did not side with
>Sauron only with Saruman and are repeatedly said to be tricked
>or deluded. Unlike the others who are said to harbour deep and
>long standing hatreds that meant they went on fighting after
>the orcs ran. Of course unlike the orcs the Dunlendings were
>actually allowed to surrender.
Well, if we're to let some Men off the hook for being tricked and deluded, we
should let them all off the hook.
Don't forget that Saruman was technically in league with Sauron. The Nazgul
made trips to Isengard and were not resisted.
Also, the Dunlendings were a remnant of an ancient race which had served
Sauron in the Second Age. Their deep-seated hatred of Gondor and its allies
was rooted in that period.
>>What does that make the Men of Umbar, who were in part descended from
>>Numenoreans and Gondorians (remember, there was an influx of folk from
Gondor
>>after Eldacar recovered his throne)?
>
>Actually I think you will find the Corsairs of Umbar are said
>to be Haradrim or whatever the correct spelling is.
"Haradrim" simply means "southern folk" or "southern people".
The history of Umbar's people is pretty well enumerated. The haven was
founded by the Numenoreans and became a seat of power for the King's Men in
Middle-earth. After the fall of Numenor Umbar's people became mingled with
lesser Men, but many of the Dunedain and other people of Gondor who supported
Castamir the Usurper fled to Umbar.
Umbar eventually came under Gondor's control again for a brief time. So there
was certainly a strong tradition not only of Dunedain blood in Umbar, but of
the blood of other Men who had dwelt in or near Gondor.
>>By extension, what does that make the people of Gondor, if not non-Whites?
>>Why, the entire story is about non-Whites!
>
>No it is not. However you will notice the long running concern
>with racial defilement through intermarriage with "lesser" men.
>Well women mostly I would think.
You missed the point I was making, but I'll continue on in this direction.
What of the long-running intention of "strengthening" the Dunedain through
intermarriage with the Northmen? Some of the Dunedain feared this would
hasten the waning of the Dunedain, but others held it would have no effect as
the loss of Numenor was what brought on the waning in the first place.
The Dunedain of the North may have lived longer lives, but they dwindled in
number.
>
>>To suggest the enemies were non-white is ridiculous.
>
>No it is not. They are repeatedly so described.
They are not "repeatedly described" so. If you think they are, then please
quote some passages.
>>>>Thus, 'swertings' were Arabs and/or Indians; the
>>>>"black men like half-trolls" were Africans.
>
>>>I have no problems with this. As I said he had a very
>>>unusual view of race.
>
>>Well, he certainly made up quite a few races that had no parallels in real
>>history. Perhaps he wasn't as concerned with race as some here think.
>
>He made up some. Orcs for instance. However these were usually
>given physical descriptions that match well with modern races.
>ie they were "sallow", "squint eyed". Even the "Africans" are
>described as being like trolls. Nice to see where he puts them
>in the scheme of things.
The orcs had fangs and red eyes, so I'm not sure of what modern races you feel
they compare well to. Perhaps you can enumerate some for us.
The only two references mentioning "black" Men are to be found in the chapter
"The Battle of the Pelennor Fields":
"...out of Far Harad black men like half-trolls with white eyes and
red tongues."
Further on they are reffered to as "troll-men":
"East rode the knights of Dol Amroth driving the enemy before them:
troll-men and Variags and orcs that hated the sunlight."
These appear not to be "Africans" at all but black-skinned man-like creatures
who are being compared to trolls.
If you can point to some other passage that confirms your identification of
these troll-men with Africans, then you may be on to something. Otherwise,
you've gone beyond the bounds of reason in your extrapolations.
>>And how, exactly, does one distinguish between a group whose idea of
>>government is to have the state control everything and imprison some of its
>>citizens for ethnic reasons and a group whose idea of government is to have
>>the state control everything and imprison some of its citizens for ethnic
>>reasons?
>
>Easily. Only a fool would confuse the Nazis with the Communists.
Or, perhaps, you should have said only a fool would try to point out the
inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your arguments.
But the Nazis and the Communists both practiced state control and the
imprisonment of citizens for ethnic reasons. In fact, the Communist-backed
Serbs have been engaged in Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia for the last couple of
years.
>>Communists or fascists, take your pick: they both ran their countries that
>>way.
>
>No they did not.
Yes they did.
>>The Nazis, of course, were responsible for the Holocaust, but Stalin
>>certainly slaughtered a lot of the people under his rule as well.
>
>Did Stalin now? There is a world of difference between the Nazis
>and the Communists. The fact that the Nazis didn't have very long
>to kill everyone they wanted should not obscure this fact. So they
>both killed a lot of people. So did the British during the war. In
>India about 3.5 million in Bengal alone. I suppose that makes the
>British and the Nazis equivalent in your eyes.
Oh, certainly, and the Americans along with the rest of the butchers. Except
only the Nazis and the Communists resorted to concentration camps, as I
recall. Perhaps some of the prisons used by the US Government in the last
century would today be considered concentration camps, but they were
ostensibly intended for prisoner control, not for the slaughter of thousands.
Stalin, by the way, is thought to have engineered the murder of nearly
20,000,000 people by some experts. Nearly as many of his people as died in
the war with his allies, the Nazis. Stalin and Hitler, recall, signed a
non-aggression pact and then agreed to divvy up Poland.
>>So, how does one justify moving Tolkien toward either group
>> philosophically as a means of moving him away from the other?
>
>I have no idea. I am not doing it so I fail to see the issue.
You certainly are. But what's worse, you're trying to cloud the issue by
making distinctions which in practical terms don't exist.
Nancy Lebovitz
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <47t5b3$s...@universe.digex.net> nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
>
>>I don't know how strict Nazi censorship was, but I do think that
>>the ideal of many races living in peace with each other is un-Nazi.
>
>But many races were not living in peace. Indeed the struggle
>between the Orcs and the Elves is on going and never ending.
>Well not quite never ending, JRRT never does tell us what was
>going to happen to all those Orcs after the fall of Mordor
>but given the general lack of Orcish prisoners I would not
>hold out much of a candle for them.
However, there's a multi-racial alliance--elves, humans, Ents, dwarves,
Eagles, hobbits......
I agree that Tolkien portrays orcs as unredeemably bad, and that
this may be a moral weakness in the books--but this is way short
of Nazism.
>>Also, purity was one of the fundamental Nazi ideas, and LOTR is
>>in favor of complex living systems.
>
>It is also big on pollution. Environmental by and large which
>was a Nazi concern but also on moral, intellectual and even
>there are odd touches of racial pollution.
There was an anti-pollution message, but it was against really
gross and obvious pollution. This is different from the Nazi
desire to purify everything in accordance with an arbitrary
standard.
There's a large difference between avoiding filth and trying
to make everything "perfect".
>>I don't think Nazis would
>>have much use for "the hands of the king are the hands of a healer",
>
>I do myself. This comes right out of mediaeval theories on the
>power of King. Holy Charisma of which the Hitler Cult was just
>a modern version. Hitler did everything else according to the
>German Propaganda Ministry, why not heal?
>
They went in for leader-worship--but I don't think they had much
respect for healers. AFAIK, what they wanted from a leader was
the ability to kill and to dominate.
>>nor for the idea that heroism is something you evoke when you must,
>>but not the basic standard of value.
>
>This is a bit English I have to admit but then it is not so
>far off. LotR certainly has a strong element of the heroic
>which is just what you expect and nothing extraordinary. Only
>the Nazis were fond of it too.
The Nazis had heartbeats, too, but that doesn't mean that there's
something wrong with having a heartbeat.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In Tolkien's day this was flatly not true. I am not
>reading fascism into it. I don't think he was. I am
>just saying that as far as you can associate him with
>either of the two totalitarian political systems he
>did not side with the Communists. He was a lot closer
>to the Germans. Hence if it is an allegory of one or
>the other it is not of fascism.
If you want to argue that LOTR was closer to Nazism than Communism
you might have a point, since Communism was based on the idea of
completely remaking human society whereas Nazism retained some
vague connection to tradition. However, this is not at all the
same thing as claiming that the ideas of the book are especially
Nazi-ish.
The book is not an allegory of *any* modern political system--
sentients live by ancient tradition (the hobbits) or under
monarchies. (Or is Mordor a tyranny? In any case, he doesn't
make it sound attractive.) "The Scouring of the Shire" is plausibly
an attack on the modern bureacratic state, but you seem to
be offended by what Tolkien defends, not what he attacks.
I'd be interested in a discussion of what the moral significance
of the portrayal of the orcs might be. However, even if they're
all wiped out at the end of the Third Age (which I think is
plausible), it *still* isn't Nazism. What made the Nazi genocides
distinctive, imho, is that they weren't part of conquest.
By the way, as I recall, Aragorn was grey-eyed, not blue-eyed.
Would anyone care to nominate some genuinely Nazi-flavored fantasy?
There's a Robert E. Howard story (the one about the blond hero
who kills the big worm-like monster in the temple) whose name
I can't remember which is the real thing. As I recall, THE
VAMPIRE LESTAT has virtue much more neatly correlated with light
coloring than Tolkien ever did.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
Joseph Askew <jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <47vt8j$9...@tzlink.j51.com> lep...@j51.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>
>>: have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>>: have had to change a word?
>
>>racial purity his German publishers for THE HOBBIT wanted before they
>>would publish,and his side criticism to his British publishers of the
>>"lunatic laws" and "wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine".
>
>What does this have to do with the issue at hand? There is no
>accusation here that Tolkien was a Nazi. Nor does the fact
What you write has made it sound as though you think Tolkien
was a Nazi, or at least strongly sympathetic to their ideas.
>that he had problems with his publishers mean anything at all.
>Heinlein had problems with his publishers. Does that mean he
>opposed the Free Market? Suppose Tolkien was just outraged
>anyone would think he was Jewish. Or perhaps someone in his
>family was. Would that prove a thing?
>
I hope that someone has the letter handy and can quote it.
As I recall, Tolkien said that he *regretted* that he had
no Jewish blood, and that the whole concept of Aryanism was
nonsense. I'd call that the equivalent of torpedoing any
chance of getting his books published by that particular
publisher. If word of the letter got out, I'd say it would
make it unlikely for any of his books to be published in
Nazi Germany.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Nancy Lebovitz
Jon Sloman <jo...@silverplatter.com> wrote:
>jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>>In article <480nau$4...@sloth.swcp.com> mma...@basis.com (Michael Martinez) writes:
>
>
>>>The Nazis, of course, were responsible for the Holocaust, but Stalin
>>>certainly slaughtered a lot of the people under his rule as well.
>>
>>Did Stalin now? There is a world of difference between the Nazis
>>and the Communists. The fact that the Nazis didn't have very long
>>to kill everyone they wanted should not obscure this fact. So they
>>both killed a lot of people. So did the British during the war. In
>>India about 3.5 million in Bengal alone. I suppose that makes the
>>British and the Nazis equivalent in your eyes.
>
>disbelief when I came upon the piece of garbage above. Documentation,
>please. Dates (which war ?). Locations of the gulags/extermination
>camps. Names of those responsible. Put up or shut up.
>
to, but neither of them were sources I'd consider definitive, so
I'd like some corroborative or denying evidence.
My two sources are Howard Fast (BEING RED) and P.J.O'Rourke (ALL
THE TROUBLES IN THE WORLD, I think). In both cases, they say that
the British convinced the Moslem grain middlemen to withhold
food, causing widespread starvation. (There were no camps or
gulags involved--people were permitted to starve at home.) Fast
said that the purpose was to prevent the Bengalis from being
allies of the Japanese if the Japanese got that far. O'Rourke
gave a slightly different motivation which I can't remember.
Fast says that he was there during the famine.
I've been meaning to ask about this on the relevent newsgroups,
but wasn't quite up for the flame war which would be likely
to result--does anyone here have some information?
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
Michael Martinez
jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>In article <483h20$g...@news.uni-c.dk> pete...@fys-hp-1.risoe.dk (Thomas
Petersen) writes:
>
>>Actually the Easteners look something like Vikings with red beards,
>>axes and all that.
>
>Where are they described as having red beards? I would
>assume they were meant to be Russians at best myself.
Only the Easterlings who blocked the path of the Rohirrim appear to have been
so described. I think I mistook this reference for Variags of Khand
previously. But THE RETURN OF THE KING says only these Easterlings were broad
and bearded like Dwarves, wielding great axes. I could not find a reference
to the color of their hair.
There's no reason to identify them with the Russians any more than with the
Vikings, though Scandinavians did make their way into the Russian steppes.
Note that these guys were not tall, but broad and short, so that sort of rules
out both the Russians and the Vikings (if there's any difference).
>>>Just in passing, to get past Soviet censorship the LotR would
>>>have to be gutted. To get passed Nazi censorship would Tolkien
>>>have had to change a word?
>
>>Obviously we'll never know how LotR would have fared,
>
>Well we can guess. A child reading it would have to learn
>that some parts of it are not true (ie there are no elves)
>but think what else he would learn. Heros all have blue eyes.
Frodo, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, Merry, Pippin, and Boromir appear not to have
blue eyes. I'd be interested in seeing some references indicating they do.
Otherwise, I don't see how anyone can get the impression from Tolkien's work
that heroes have to have blue eyes. And where's the blond hair?
>Non-aryans are by and large in league with nasty people.
Some of the "aryans", if you mean the Northmen, were in league with the nasty
people (i.e., Wormtongue). Many "non-aryans" (i.e., other than Northmen) were
on the side of good. If by "aryan" you mean whites only, you haven't
established all the bad guys weren't white.
>To consistently refuse to take sub-humans prisoner is fine. Some
>people are genetically superior to others. The genetically
>superior have a right to rule.
I missed the genetic lectures in Tolkien. He has Elves breeding with Edain,
Edain breeding with non-Edain, and some sort of Men breeding with Orcs. Only
the latter situation seems to be universally condemned. In the previous
cases, there were some "purists" who opposed such marriages, but they were not
the leading groups (i.e., the other moral argument prevailed).
>Interbreeding with lesser races is a mistake and a source of corruption
>and decline.
The Elves certainly didn't decline because of it, and the Edain were enriched
because of it, so this statement makes no sense.
Joseph Askew
>: Why? The book probably does show too much pity to Smeagol
>: but it wouls still be suitable for children I would think.
><cough>
>I think he means Frodo's not following orders, here.
Frodo is not given any orders regarding Smeagol.
>He's
>striking out on his own, having independent thoughts, nay!
Well he talks it over with Gandalf first. Gandalf pursuades
him of the benefits of being nice if I remember correctly.
>even attempting to overthrow an established regime. I
>think the Nazis might have had a few problems with that.
Well to keep this a pleasant thread I shall refrain from
saying what I think of your opinion. Hitler himself over
threw at least three established regimes I can think of.
Frodo does not try to change *his* regime, just smite the
enemy good.
>Didn't Tolkien himself say that the events in tLotR bore no
>relation whatsoever to World War II? I don't remember
>exactly where I read this (alas for the vagaries of memory).
He says that the political events in the Shire at the end of
the story bear no relation to contemporary British politics.
And if you believe that, well what can I say?
>On the "Clearly." What, you don't consider Mordor to be a
>fascist regime?
No. It is far more of a Communist regime. Opposition to
private property and all that.
>The regimented, militaristic Orc society?
Not really.
>The central government that not only controlled the actions
>of citizens but their very _minds?_
Not unique to Fascism and far more typical of Communist
regimes. Hitler by and large left people alone if they
did not oppose him and were racially pure.
>The racial superiority
>ethic of the Uruk-Hai?
They do not define themselves are racially pure. They
just hate everyone else.
>Maybe you've got a different definition
>of fascism than I do, or maybe I'm remembering my government
>class wrong.
Maybe you are.
Joseph
Sauer, Alan Lewis
: In article <485qgp$7...@alvarez.physics.csbsju.edu> ALS...@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu (Sauer, Alan Lewis) writes:
: >: Why? The book probably does show too much pity to Smeagol
: >: but it wouls still be suitable for children I would think.
: ><cough>
: >I think he means Frodo's not following orders, here.
: Frodo is not given any orders regarding Smeagol.
I meant refusing to destroy the Ring as he was supposed to.
: >He's
: >striking out on his own, having independent thoughts, nay!
: Well he talks it over with Gandalf first. Gandalf pursuades
: him of the benefits of being nice if I remember correctly.
See above.
: >even attempting to overthrow an established regime. I
: >think the Nazis might have had a few problems with that.
: Well to keep this a pleasant thread I shall refrain from
: saying what I think of your opinion. Hitler himself over
: threw at least three established regimes I can think of.
: Frodo does not try to change *his* regime, just smite the
: enemy good.
Yeah, but the Nazis probably wouldn't want anyone thinking about
overthrowing _their_ regime. That's what I meant.
: >Didn't Tolkien himself say that the events in tLotR bore no
: >relation whatsoever to World War II? I don't remember
: >exactly where I read this (alas for the vagaries of memory).
: He says that the political events in the Shire at the end of
: the story bear no relation to contemporary British politics.
: And if you believe that, well what can I say?
: >On the "Clearly." What, you don't consider Mordor to be a
: >fascist regime?
: No. It is far more of a Communist regime. Opposition to
: private property and all that.
: >The regimented, militaristic Orc society?
: Not really.
Huh? _I_ thought the Orcs had a militaristic society. Granted,
we don't see much of their society, but it seemed as if the Orcs
in Mordor were all part of the army. I call that militaristic.
: >The central government that not only controlled the actions
: >of citizens but their very _minds?_
: Not unique to Fascism and far more typical of Communist
: regimes. Hitler by and large left people alone if they
: did not oppose him and were racially pure.
I'd say something about propaganda, but hey, everybody did it! :)
: >The racial superiority
: >ethic of the Uruk-Hai?
: They do not define themselves are racially pure. They
: just hate everyone else.
I didn't say racially _pure._ I said racially _superior._ The
Uruk-Hai definitely think they're superior. Check out when
Merry and Pippin are in Orc hands. The whole Ugluk-vs.-Misty-Mts.-Orcs
thing. That, and "Snaga." That's not a proper name, it's the Orc
word for "slave." Used by Uruk-Hai at least twice to refer to Orcs
of "lesser" breeds.
: >Maybe you've got a different definition
: >of fascism than I do, or maybe I'm remembering my government
: >class wrong.
: Maybe you are.
Hey, I took it in ninth grade. :)
Hans Olsson
Michael Martinez <mma...@basis.com> wrote:
>In article <jbask1.255...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>Don't forget that Saruman was technically in league with Sauron. The Nazgul
>made trips to Isengard and were not resisted.
I believe that it was more complex:
Saruman was in the process of breaking the treaty but needed the ring to
oppose Sauron.
Sauron was probably aware of it, but intended to deal with that problem
in the future.
>>Did Stalin now? There is a world of difference between the Nazis
>>and the Communists. The fact that the Nazis didn't have very long
>>to kill everyone they wanted should not obscure this fact. So they
>>both killed a lot of people. So did the British during the war. In
>>India about 3.5 million in Bengal alone. I suppose that makes the
>>British and the Nazis equivalent in your eyes.
>
>Oh, certainly, and the Americans along with the rest of the butchers. Except
>only the Nazis and the Communists resorted to concentration camps, as I
>recall.
Look up "Concentration Camp" in Enc. Britannica.
The British used them during a war in south Africa(c:a 1900), the Americans
used them during the second world war (100,000 asian-Americans
(or perhaps only Japanese descendants?)).
There's however a great deal of difference between these camps and
the nazi-communist ones.
Basically the British and Americans used concentration camps to imprision
people related to some group they were at war with (although these prisoners
were not POWs). And only the nazi-communist got the idea of killing
prisoners AFAIK.
So: true Good opposing true Evil is seldom found in the real world.
>Stalin, by the way, is thought to have engineered the murder of nearly
>20,000,000 people by some experts. Nearly as many of his people as died in
>the war with his allies, the Nazis. Stalin and Hitler, recall, signed a
>non-aggression pact and then agreed to divvy up Poland.
Yes, but they were most certainly not allies during that part of the war.
Hitler had only done what Saruman intended.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
>If anyone was making this claim it might. Or, on the other hand,
>it might show that Tolkien could not prove he was an Aryan. Or
>that he felt it was impertinent of the publishers. Trouble with
>publishers does not mean a lot in itself. If he really objected
>to the Nazis he would have insisted that it not be published in
>Germany. A bit unreasonable perhaps but he didn't do it.
>
>Joseph
I disagree. It's easy to take this attitude in the comfortable hindsight
of 1995. I have yet to encounter anything in Tolkien's writings or even
those of his contemporaries which suggest that any of them--including C.
S. Lewis, Charles Williams, etc--supported the Nazis or were in the
least bit ambivalent about them. Don't forget Tolkien had at least one
child (Christopher) off fighting for the British during WWII.
Also, let's not forget--Tolkien was an academic during an era when
writers were considerably less aware of their rights than they are now.
Remember the unauthorized version of LoTR during the '60s?
Michael Martinez
nan...@universe.digex.net (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
>Would anyone care to nominate some genuinely Nazi-flavored fantasy?
>There's a Robert E. Howard story (the one about the blond hero
>who kills the big worm-like monster in the temple) whose name
>I can't remember which is the real thing. As I recall, THE
>VAMPIRE LESTAT has virtue much more neatly correlated with light
>coloring than Tolkien ever did.
Robert E. Howard's essay on the Hyborian Age has the blond-haired northmen
evolving from snow apes much later than other men, so I'm not sure the Nazis
would have appreciated the implications of that <g>.
I don't recall how many of his stories involved blond-haired heroes, but he
was best known for Conan and Kull, both dark-haired men.
Also, the Nazis never seem to have dealt with the reality that most ancient
Germans were red-haired, not blond-haired. The blond-hair trait is believed
to have entered the German lands when Scandinavian tribes migrated south and
then east.
The "Nordic" race, therefore, was not exactly what gave rise to Germany <g>.
Michael Martinez
jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
Except Faramir's command to report to Minas Tirith. Frodo took responsibility
for Smeagol. But, hey, who's counting if it's inconvenient to cite events
where Frodo may have been given orders concerning Smeagol....
>>Didn't Tolkien himself say that the events in tLotR bore no
>>relation whatsoever to World War II? I don't remember
>>exactly where I read this (alas for the vagaries of memory).
>
>He says that the political events in the Shire at the end of
>the story bear no relation to contemporary British politics.
>And if you believe that, well what can I say?
Here's what Tolkien writes in the Foreward to LOTR:
"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its
process or conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the
development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would
have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have
been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have
been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get
possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and
treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing
links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before
long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with
which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth.
In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in
hatred and contempt: they would not have long survived
even as slaves."
Further:
"An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by
his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses
the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts
to define the process are at best guesses from evidence
that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false,
though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author
and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements
of thought or the events of times common to both were
necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed
personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully
its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often
forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less
hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and
the following years. Or to take a less grievous matter:
it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the
Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when
I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential
part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the
event modified by the character of Saruman as developed
in the story without, need I say, any allegorical
significance or contemporary political reference."
The evolution of the story is certainly well documented in THE HISTORY OF
MIDDLE-EARTH's middle volumes: THE RETURN OF THE SHADOW, THE TREASON OF
ISENGARD, THE WAR OF THE RING, and SAURON DEFEATED.
There seems no plausible reason to doubt his word on the subject.
Joel Rosenberg
>This is why books like tLotR are so nice. We get to see Good
>and Evil in their purest forms, which helps us identify the
>grey areas easier.
I'm not at all sure that's true, but God, that's a pretty thought.
Joseph Askew
>>>What does that make the Dunlendings, I wonder,
>>>who sided with Saruman and thus served Sauron's purposes?
Besides Welsh I suppose.
>>Of course unlike the orcs the Dunlendings were
>>actually allowed to surrender.
>Well, if we're to let some Men off the hook for being tricked and deluded, we
>should let them all off the hook.
No not really. Tolkien has a world where people are clearly
divided up on racial grounds. At the top are the elves, under
them are the (blond, blue eyed) Men who intermarried with them
and hence as racially superior have a right to rule, under them
come Men less superior but still fairly blonde and blue eyed,
beneath these come the men who are white but have dark hair who
are tricked and later allowed to surrender, under them come the
Arabs who hate the real Men so much they go on fighting, under
them come the Blacks who are sort of barely human, under these
come the real sub-humans who are not allowed to surrender and are
presumably all murdered at the end of the story. I have problems
with this even if you don't.
>Also, the Dunlendings were a remnant of an ancient race which had served
>Sauron in the Second Age. Their deep-seated hatred of Gondor and its allies
>was rooted in that period.
The Dunlendings hate the men of Rohim no? Not the men of Gondor.
>>Actually I think you will find the Corsairs of Umbar are said
>>to be Haradrim or whatever the correct spelling is.
>"Haradrim" simply means "southern folk" or "southern people".
>The history of Umbar's people is pretty well enumerated. The haven was
>founded by the Numenoreans
Black Numenoreans who had already come under Sauron's influence.
>and became a seat of power for the King's Men in
>Middle-earth. After the fall of Numenor Umbar's people became mingled with
>lesser Men,
The fools engaged in intermarriage with the lesser men around
them you mean. Who these are is not spelt out but they are
probably the men of Harad. I do like someone who can claim
that marrying racial inferiors is a source of corruption and
decline. When they live far far away from me.
>>No it is not. However you will notice the long running concern
>>with racial defilement through intermarriage with "lesser" men.
>>Well women mostly I would think.
>You missed the point I was making, but I'll continue on in this direction.
Please do.
>What of the long-running intention of "strengthening" the Dunedain through
>intermarriage with the Northmen?
What of it?
>Some of the Dunedain feared this would
>hasten the waning of the Dunedain, but others held it would have no effect as
>the loss of Numenor was what brought on the waning in the first place.
So some people claimed this racial defilement would have no effects
and some claimed it would. I want to know why they are discussing it
in the first place.
>These appear not to be "Africans" at all but black-skinned man-like
>creatures who are being compared to trolls.
Meaning they are damned ugly I assume in Tolkiens eyes. I would
be prepared to make a bet that any twenty people selected at
random would overwhelmingly support my claim that these people
are meant to be a lot like modern Africans.
>If you can point to some other passage that confirms your identification of
>these troll-men with Africans, then you may be on to something. Otherwise,
>you've gone beyond the bounds of reason in your extrapolations.
This is one issue I will not budge on. If you want to go on
denying the obvious please do. I doubt most reasonable people
would agree with you.
>>Easily. Only a fool would confuse the Nazis with the Communists.
>Or, perhaps, you should have said only a fool would try to point out the
>inconsistencies and inaccuracies in your arguments.
Well I often think that myself. But it is not polite to say so.
>But the Nazis and the Communists both practiced state control and the
So did both the British and Americans during the war. Therefore
they are all the same?
>imprisonment of citizens for ethnic reasons.
So did the US during the war. Therefore they are all the same?
>In fact, the Communist-backed
>Serbs have been engaged in Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia for the last couple of
>years.
Serbs are not backed by Communists and Israel was engaged in
Ethnic Cleansing during the War of Independence. Makes them
the same? Come to think of it the US (under Andrew Jackson for
instance) and Britian all over Africa engaged in ethnic cleansing.
This means that they are all the same does it?
>>I have no idea. I am not doing it so I fail to see the issue.
>You certainly are.
No I'm not actually.
>But what's worse, you're trying to cloud the issue by
>making distinctions which in practical terms don't exist.
Anyone who had got out of the US for a while and had talked
to people who lived under either the Communists or the Nazis
would realise there are important differences. If you cannot
see them then that is your problem and I see no point going
on with it.
Joseph
Joseph Askew
>>Did Stalin now? There is a world of difference between the Nazis
>>and the Communists. The fact that the Nazis didn't have very long
>>to kill everyone they wanted should not obscure this fact. So they
>>both killed a lot of people. So did the British during the war. In
>>India about 3.5 million in Bengal alone. I suppose that makes the
>>British and the Nazis equivalent in your eyes.
>I was idly scanning through this thread with an increasing sense of
>disbelief when I came upon the piece of garbage above. Documentation,
>please. Dates (which war ?). Locations of the gulags/extermination
>camps. Names of those responsible. Put up or shut up.
I would be delighted to document this. Nothing simpler. The
British responded to the advancing Japanese in 1942 by either
destroying or impounding all boats in Bengal. Many of these
were used for moving farmers and grain around what is now
Bangladesh. They also requisitioned massive amounts of grain
to be sent home for the war effort. The result was that when
the harvest of 1942-43 was poor millions of Bengalis starved
to death. A totally man made famine. No gulags but then Stalin
didn't use them in the Ukraine either. Same methods. An official
British inquiry was set up and came up with a figure of 1 million
dead. A couple of statisticians in 1944 came up with the 3.5
million figure which is likely to most accurate. Some Indians
claim well over 10 million. I went with the credible one. While
I dig around you might start with a non-academic book like the
rather nice Geoffery Moorehouse _Calcutta_ which also provides
a bibliography. While you are doing that think about your apology
I know you lack the guts to give but which you ought to anyway.
Joseph
Jo Walton
nan...@universe.digex.net "Nancy Lebovitz" writes:
> I hope that someone has the letter handy and can quote it.
From The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, ed. Humphrey Carpenter, George Allen &
Unwin, London, 1981.
Just for absolute clarity: These letters are about the german translation of
_The Hobbit_ not _LoTR_ which was not yet written
p37 to Stanley Unwin July 1938
"Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or
do their lunatic laws recquire a certificate of "arisch" origin from all
persons of all countries?
Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestatingung (although
it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I
should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not
regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable.
I have many Jewish friends and I should regret giving any colour to the notion
that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race doctrine."
p37 to Rutten & Loening Verlag (German publishers) July 1938
"I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of
Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my
ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I
am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can
only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted
people."
He goes on to say that he is primarily English but has always been proud of
having a German name, but that if Germany carries on along these lines the time
will come when he is not any longer.
This passage is also of relevance to Tolkien's views on Hitler and race:
p55 Letter to Michael Tolkien 1941
"I have spent most of my life, since I was your age, studying Germanic matters
(in the general sense that includes England and Scandinavia). There is a great
deal more force (and truth) than ignorant people imagine in the "Germanic"
ideal. I was much attracted by it as an undergraduate (when Hitler was, I
suppose, dabbling in paint and had not heard of it), in reaction against the
"Classics". You have to understand the good in things, to detect the real evil.
...Yet I suppose I know better than most what is the truth about this "Nordic"
nonsense. Anyway, I have in this War a burning private grudge - which would
probably make me a better soldier at 49 than I was at 22: against that ruddy
little ignoramous Adolf Hitler (for the odd thing about demonic inspiration and
impetus is that it in no way enhances the purely intellectual stature: it
chiefly affects the mere will). Ruining, perverting, misapplying, and making
for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to
Europe, which I have ever loved, and tried to present in its true light."
Quoted expressly for the purposes of refuting accusations of anti-semitism and
of fair critical use, with no intention to infringe copyright.
Tolkien was a man of his age and not ours
--
Jo
***********************************************************
- - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
***********************************************************
Storytelling Card Games from the Magellanica Company:
Into the Dark Continent, Dragon's Cave, & Deserted Chapel
Now available nationally, distributed by Esdevium Games
Joseph Askew
>>If he really objected
>>to the Nazis he would have insisted that it not be published in
>>Germany. A bit unreasonable perhaps but he didn't do it.
>I disagree. It's easy to take this attitude in the comfortable hindsight
>of 1995. I have yet to encounter anything in Tolkien's writings or even
>those of his contemporaries which suggest that any of them--including C.
>S. Lewis, Charles Williams, etc--supported the Nazis or were in the
>least bit ambivalent about them. Don't forget Tolkien had at least one
>child (Christopher) off fighting for the British during WWII.
Actually a large number of Tolkien's contemporaries supported
Hitler and at least two of them were tried for it (Ezra Pound
got of lightly for example) It is also true that large numbers
of his contemporaries didn't support them and weren't in the
least bit ambivalent about them but then most of these were
Communists or fellow travellers. The number of people who came
out on neither side is a lot smaller and offhand I can only
think of Evelyn Waugh and even he originally support the fascists
in Italy.
But to keep the original point in mind, there is no evidence
that the LotR was an Anti-Nazi allegory. There is also no
evidence that his problems with his publishers in Germany
prove a lot.
Joseph
Matt Austern
> No not really. Tolkien has a world where people are clearly
> divided up on racial grounds. At the top are the elves, under
> them are the (blond, blue eyed) Men who intermarried with them
> and hence as racially superior have a right to rule, under them
> come Men less superior but still fairly blonde and blue eyed,
> beneath these come the men who are white but have dark hair who
> are tricked and later allowed to surrender, under them come the
> Arabs who hate the real Men so much they go on fighting, under
> them come the Blacks who are sort of barely human, under these
> come the real sub-humans who are not allowed to surrender and are
> presumably all murdered at the end of the story. I have problems
> with this even if you don't.
It's true that there are clear racial distinctions in Tolkien's work,
but I don't think this summary is at all fair. In the first place,
the use of "Blacks" and "Arabs" is at best misleading. Presumably
this refers to the men from Rhun and Harad, but the metaphor isn't a
very good one. There certainly aren't two different kinds of Haradans
that are racially different and one of which is better than the other.
In the second place, it leaves out a lot of the races. Hobbits, for
example, are pretty clearly a race of men. And then there are dwarves
and ents, who are neither clearly superior nor clearly inferior to
men. In other words: we aren't dealing with a simple hierarchy here,
but something more like a partial ordering. (And, of course, there
are also important distinctions within dwarvenkind and elvenkind.)
In the third place, the premise that elves are superior to men is a
false one. This gets essentially into religious questions, and the
important places to look are all in The Silmarillion. A very crude
summary, though, is that elves' virtues are the more obvious ones but
that men have strange gifts (such as the Gift of Death) that even the
Valar do not understand and that in some ways raise them above the
elves.
I'm fairly far left by contemporary American standards, and I'm sure
that I would have disagreed with Tolkien's religious and political
views (just as I would have disagreed with Lewis and Chesterton), but
I really see no need to caricature them.
--
Matt Austern He showed his lower teeth. "We
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu all have flaws," he said, "and
http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt mine is being wicked."
gly...@geology.uct.ac.za
>
> No not really. Tolkien has a world where people are clearly
> divided up on racial grounds. At the top are the elves, under
> them are the (blond, blue eyed) Men who intermarried with them
> and hence as racially superior have a right to rule, under them
> come Men less superior but still fairly blonde and blue eyed,
> beneath these come the men who are white but have dark hair who
> are tricked and later allowed to surrender,
> (Rest of Ranting Deleted)
>
> Joseph
Not so! Or do you not read the book?Numenoreans are *dark*-haired:
Aragorn
Boromir
Faramir
The Dunedain
All the other Gondor and Endor folk mentioned.
It is only the (less highly civilized, but no less in honour)
Rohirrhim who are blonde.
Most of the elves, too, are dark-haired- so that it becomes worthy of a *name* when they are not.
(cf "Galadriel"="Shining Glory", or "Crown of Gold") Again, it is the less high Wood-elves who are
customarily blonde. So, Tolkien did not, as this one wishes to show, associate highness with Aryan
features. Much more than this,was what was inside -"Handsome is as handsome does.",
as a very wise chance aquaintance once said.
I think that some people just have an axe to grind, and that there is really no way we can impose
our PC morals on a kindly, wise, *good* professor, who has given us
so much pleasure for so many years. *I* read Tolkien with love, and that is what I
take from it - Others take from it, too, what the bring there - Like another place,
long ago and far away.
Neil, who has already today cried sad tears at the passing of Theoden King, and who knows
that he will laugh before the hour is passed, as the Tree and Stars and Crown shine on the Fields
before the Walls
Nancy Lebovitz
>In article <jbask1.261...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au> jba...@MFS06.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>that the LotR was an Anti-Nazi allegory. There is also no
Tolkien was quite firm that the book wasn't an allegory. Period.
>>evidence that his problems with his publishers in Germany
>>prove a lot.
>
>Kind of insane to suggest it, actually, since most of it so thoroughly
>predates Nazi-ism (or at least predates any particular condemnation of
>Naziism) (remember, it took him a long time to write, and for the most
Good point.
>part Western thought held that National Socialism was doing a great
>job of restoring German pride and helping them recover from their
>terrible economic crisis (if it helps you can compare the few carpers
>to Chomsky, and the leaders of Socialism to Begin or Farrakhan)).
>It's mostly about the evils of industrialization (what is Mordor or
>Isengard but factories surrounded by slag-heaps?), and about the
They're factories used only for military production.
>trench-warfare of WW-I when it comes near that kind of topic at all.
>
>I don't see the justification for the blue-eyed blonde-haired
>argument. In fact Tolkien's apologia was aimed more at the oft
>observed fact that the british aristocracy averaged several inches
>taller than the commons (a fact that had first been brought home
>during WW-I, when the aristocracy formed the officer class and
>everybody was measured). So JRRT developed a mythology in which the
>"Higher" men, descended from the inhabitants of Nu'menor, were part
>Elf, and happened to be much taller and finer than the commons...
>It disturbs me that people are so eager to make a bogus point that
>they are willing to invent the blue-eyed thing, and then try and
>support it with "well Aragorn's were grey, but biologically that's the
>same thing". The people of Rohan were (as I remember) blue-eyed
>blondes, but neither Boromir or Faramir came across that way, not to
>mention the hobbits or the Ents, Gandalf etc. ... In fact, color wise
Also note that the Rohirim are considered inferior to the black-
haired Gondorians. Offhand, Eowyn marrying Faramir is the only example
I can think of for a woman marrying up in the books.
>one can note quickly that they are all fairly pale skinned, except for
>the southrons allied with sauron, and the asians (yellow skinned and
>slant-eyed) who were believed to be part orc.
>
As I recall, it's implied or stated that most elves, humans, and
hobbits are dark haired. Blondes are unusual.
>Of course, this was all from memory. Like a good poster, I check my
>sources:
>Strider: "shaggy head of dark hair flecked with grey, and in a pale
>stern face a pair of keen grey eyes."
Thanks. We should all do that more often, including me.
>In fact grey eyes seem to be common among elves. Glorfindel
>is blond, but Elrond's hair is "dark as the shadows of twilight" and,
>of course Arwen's hair is colored similarly. How many people ever
>remember that Arwen has dark hair?
>
I do.
>Boromir: "dark-haired and grey-eyed". Fair-faced.
>
>And the half-orcs are sallow skinned, and squint- or slant-eyed.
>
For what it's worth, until this discussion it had never occured
to me that orcs might be identified with Asians since orcs are
described as extremely ugly while Asians strike me as being
aesthetically on a par with whites.
When Tim Kirk drew orcs wearing fantasy Samurai armor, I thought
he was being arbitrary.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)