Gondor=Byzantium?
Patrick G. Matthews
>Gondor.............Byzantine Empire
Not a good analogy. While Elendil was considered the High King of the
Faithful Dunedain of Middle Earth, the kingdoms of Goindor and Arnor were
founded separately. Elendil founded Arnor, and Anarion and Isildur jointly
founded Gondor.
As a contrast, the Byzantine Empire got its start as the eastern half of
the Roman Empire, a single empire that split into prefectures.
>Arnor..............(Holy) Roman Empire
Another bad analogy. The HRE was neither holy nor Roman--it was German.
The re-established Arnor from LotR *is* the Arnor of old, albeit with
fewer Dunedain. The HRE had no real ties to the original Roman Empire.
>Minas Tirith.......Constantinople
Minas Tirith was assaulted many times, but was never taken. Constantinople
was conquered many times--both by "infidels" and by "crusaders".
>Mordor.............Ottoman Empire
>Orcs...............Turks (no offense)
>etc.
I think we're getting rather far afield here.
>If so, is there any good evidence for this being intentional, and if so, what
>the intentions might have been (other than their being interesting)?
I fail to see any striking similarities here.
Pat
--
"Young Patrick" Matthews matt...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
314 South 40th Street Penn Band Flag-Waver Extraordinaire
Philadelphia, PA 19104 Penn College Bowl Foreign Minister
(215) 382-2491 Owner, East Norwalk New Originals
Petteri Sulonen
>Does anybody know of any parallels ever having been drawn between places and
>events in LOTR and real historical events along the following lines?
>Gondor.............Byzantine Empire
>Arnor..............(Holy) Roman Empire
>Minas Tirith.......Constantinople
>Mordor.............Ottoman Empire
>Orcs...............Turks (no offense)
>etc.
>If so, is there any good evidence for this being intentional, and if so, what
>the intentions might have been (other than their being interesting)?
Sounds like hogwash to me. Well, not totally -- some parallels are obvious --
but JRRT himself compared Gondor to ancient Egypt (and the Winged Crown to
the Crown of Egypt). He also compared the Orcs to the mongoloid races.
Other than the tradition of having the Enemy come from the East, I don't see
many other parallels between Orcs/Mordor and the Turks/the Ottoman empire.
Or the Holy Roman Empire/Arnor, either. Also, other than that Gondor was in
a state of decay, I don't see many parallels between the Byzantine Empire/
Constantinople and GOndor/Minas Tirith -- where is the High Priest/Emperor,
the golden mosaics, the horse-races, the general decadence? In fact, Minas
Tirith is described much more like ancient Baghdad than Constantinople!
(Coincidence, or at least unintentional, I'm certain.)
-- Petteri
rolf david rockliff
events in LOTR and real historical events along the following lines?
Gondor.............Byzantine Empire
Arnor..............(Holy) Roman Empire
Minas Tirith.......Constantinople
Mordor.............Ottoman Empire
Orcs...............Turks (no offense)
etc.
If so, is there any good evidence for this being intentional, and if so, what
the intentions might have been (other than their being interesting)?
Rolf Rockliff
rroc...@indiana.edu
rolf david rockliff
Since it appears that the responses to my tentative proposal did not take into
account the evidence for the proposal (for I did not enumerate any of the
striking parallelisms which I have observed, but rather expected that other
readers would have noted them as well), I shall now present, very briefly,
some of the details which lead me to consider my proposition at least
marginally worthy of consideration. I welcome the comments of all, and hope
that there are some true Tolkien scholars here to set me straight if my
associations are flawed. I shall not cite any page referrences, since we all
are, presumably, familiar with the general set-up of Middle-earth.
THE PARALLELS I OBSERVE between Middle-earth and our own World
Gondor/Byzantine Empire: BOTH are the Eastern half of a greater political
unit. Gondor is the eastern (technically, south-eastern) half of the old
Numenorean Empire (established in Middle-earth after the fall of Numenor).
BOTH were considered in some way subordinate to their counterparts. Gondor
was second after Arnor. Constantinople was the second capital of the Roman
Empire. BOTH survived the destruction of their counterparts. Gondor still
existed as a viable force after the Witch-King crushed Arnor. Constantinople
still existed as a viable force after the Teutons sacked Rome. BOTH defended
the "West" from the assaults of the "East." Gondor fought back the various
hordes of "swarthy men" and orcs. Constantinople fought back the Turks and
muslims.
Arnor/Roman Empire (Western): See arguments above.
Minas Tirith/Constantinople: BOTH are referred to as "the City." In
medieval Europe Constantinople was referred to as "the City." BOTH are
strategically positioned to ward off invasions from the East. BOTH are
described in similar terms regarding their fortifications. The description
of the walls of Minas Tirith is almost identical to medieval descriptions of
the Periteichon around Constantinople. BOTH (from the Western perspective)
were lacking legitimate rulers. Minis Tirith had a Steward until a King
came from the line of Isildur. Constantinople had an emperor, however, the
Crusaders argued that this emperor was little more than a steward, awaiting
the return of the legitimate Latin Emperor.
Morder/Ottoman Empire: BOTH were geographically to the south-east of
Europe/Middle-earth. BOTH menaced Europe/Middle-earth with invasion. BOTH
were held off by the "Great City."
Orcs/Turks: BOTH are described in physically similar terms. Medieval
Europeans described Turks as being short, stocky, dark, slant-eyed, and
hideous. BOTH are described as employing similar arms and armor. Turks
wore circular conical helmets, often with a spike, and wielded curved swords,
and carried knives at their side. Just like Orcs. Also, the Orcs delighted
in explosions and brought down enemy walls with what sounds very much like
the first European descriptions of CANONFIRE. Just like the Turks. BOTH
were described as being extraordinarily brutal. Finally, as a linguist, I
have to say that Black Speech bears considerable similarity to TURKISH.
Rolf Rockliff
rroc...@indiana.edu
Patrick G. Matthews
comparison, but I still think it's invalid.
Rather than going point-by-point, I'll raise just a few of my objections.
1) The Constantinople/Minas Tirith link
The chief city of the Byzantine Empire was *always* Constantinople. The
chief city of Gondor was originally Osgilliath, and when Gondor was
founded Minas Ithil (later Minas Morgul) was a more important citadel than
Minas Anor (later Minas Tirith), as it guarded the Gondor/Mordor border.
It was not until after Minas Ithil was permanently taken from Gondor and
Osgilliath was ruined in the Kin-Strife and the wars with Mordor that
Minas Tirith became the main city of Gondor.
Also, Tolkien writes that no foe *ever* captured Minas Tirith; indeed, the
closest anyone ever got was the breach of the first wall just before the
arrival of the Rohirrim and the Battle of the Pelennor Field.
Constantinople, on the other hand, was sacked by both the Turks *and*
Crusaders before the Byzantine Empire finally failed.
2) Gondor and Arnor = The East and West Roman Empires
Again, simply not true, though it is tempting to draw a comparison. As
I've noted before, the Roman and Byzantine Empires were essentially
geographic divisions of the same political unit (until the death of the
western unit ca. 476 AD). This was not true of the Numenorean kingdoms,
which were founded separately and which were not linked politically after
the death of Isildur.
Also, look at the political order of Europe between the fall of Rome and
the era of the Crusades. When Rome fell, it took about 150 years for
Europe to regroup back into stable kingdoms. From the fall of Arthedain in
the Third Age, we see *nothing* like this until after the WotR. The only
places that seem to have any political organization in the Arnor area
during this time are the Shire and Bree. I presume Imladris lay outside
the jurisdiction of Arnor, even at its height.
I could go on longer, but we all have better things to do :)
Richard Wang
rolf david rockliff <rroc...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>ILLUCIDATION of my Initial Posting on Parallels between Gondor and Byzantium
>Morder/Ottoman Empire: BOTH were geographically to the south-east of
>Europe/Middle-earth. BOTH menaced Europe/Middle-earth with invasion. BOTH
>the first European descriptions of CANONFIRE. Just like the Turks. BOTH
>were described as being extraordinarily brutal. Finally, as a linguist, I
>have to say that Black Speech bears considerable similarity to TURKISH.
Surely as a LINGUIST you appreciate the IMPORTANCE of allowing your
WORDS to do the talking, instead of your POINTLESS AND VERY DISTRACTING
EMPHASIS.
--
Richard Wang
rw...@husc.harvard.edu
"Eve was not the first to pluck and sample the apple. Adam was first and
he learned by this to put the blame on Eve."--Leto II,
_God_Emperor_of_Dune_, Frank Herbert
Jed Wyrick
are Arabs, the Dwarves are Jews, Numenor is Atlantis, the Wainriders are
Huns(?).
I'm not so much interested in how intentional this all was, but rather in
how history and ethnicity get encoded in this kind of mytho-history.
Jedediah
wyr...@husc.harvard.edu
Jed Wyrick
>In <Cnypn...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> rroc...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (rolf david rockliff) writes:
>
>>Does anybody know of any parallels ever having been drawn between places and
>>events in LOTR and real historical events along the following lines?
>
>>Gondor.............Byzantine Empire
>>Arnor..............(Holy) Roman Empire
>>Minas Tirith.......Constantinople
>>Mordor.............Ottoman Empire
>>Orcs...............Turks (no offense)
>>etc.
>
>>If so, is there any good evidence for this being intentional, and if so, what
>>the intentions might have been (other than their being interesting)?
>
provoked. You people can really be simplistic! The point is not whether
Minas Tirith matches up with Constantinople in every detail. God! I
guess if Tolkien really wanted to make a conscious allusion, every western
civ history geek would pipe up and correct him on his facts--"The Holy
Roman Empire is neither holy nor Roman nor an empire."
I myself am not really interested in the intentionality of all this, but
rather the way in which events/characters/places in mytho-history get coded
as events etc. from "real" history. But all you literalists will likely
have a problem with this...
For those of you who don't, I would add that the Haradrim are
perhaps coded as Arabs and sometimes even as black Africans, and the Dwarves
certainly are to a large extent coded as Jews. I have much to say on the
latter, so if you are interested...
Jedediah
wyr...@husc.harvard.edu
rolf david rockliff
that there are people who can reply to a theory using a civil tone! I was
beginning to think that I should abandon this place as the domain of snotty
"experts."
Yes indeed, I think the Haradrim are possibly Arabs, or Saracens. Regarding
the dwarves, I too had pondered their parallels with the Jews. And, as a
linguist (I'm not an expert linguist, but that is my specialty) I do with
confidence state that Khuzdul (is this right?) is a rather obvious analog
of a Semitic language, right down to the phonology and even the triliteral
morphology. Like the Jews in medieval Europe, the dwarves pretty much keep
to themselves. Both have associations with precious metals and gems. And,
both have a history of stout resistence of persecution. In anticipation of
objections, I hasten to add that the Eddaic element in Tolkien's dwarves
(ie, their names) issuperficial and represents a Westron translation of the
more foreign Dwarvish originals. I think the key correlation is the
"foreignness" factor. Medieval Europeans regarded the Jews as "foreign,"
much as the men and elves regarded the dwarves as "foreign." Dwarves have
a grim, mysterious, deep "Old Testament" feel about them.
Whatever this all means, if it means anything at all, I present this as
observation and speculation. I see parallels, I don't claim that there are
any exact correlations. At any rate, the forces of Evil certainly tremble
when elf and dwarf are allies!
Rolf Rockliff
rroc...@indiana.edu
tuck...@urvax.urich.edu
attempt to make secondary analogies in order to tie every element in both
worlds together. In other words, Gondor = Byzantium and Arnor = the fallen
Western Empire (which I think makes much more since than the Holy Roman
Empire) is worth discussion, and even Turks = Orcs makes since if looked at
from the point of view of their enemies (makes one wonder if Orcs really
weren't evil at all, just portrayed that way by elves and elf-friends.) But
I have a much harder time swallowing Wainriders = Huns (the Wainriders never
won) and most especially Dwarves = Jews.
My reasons for opposing the latter in particular are many. The
relationship of Judaism to Christianity was utterly unlike the Elves' and
Humans' feelings and ignorance towards the Dwarves' completely alien beliefs.
The Dwarves' civilization was younger than the Elves' and comparable to
Humans', while Jewish culture was far, far older than Christian or Turk. The
Dwarves hated Orcs almost as much as Elves did, while Judaism and Islam co-
existed far more cordially than either with Christianity. Finally, while both
Dwarves and Jews are "associated with precious metals" the cultures are
otherwise totally opposite. Dwarves are renowned for mining, engineering,
crafts, and warfare, in about that order, while Medieval Jews were known much
more for commercial trade and philosophy than mining or engineering, and didn't
practice warfare at all as a group.
If anything, I think Elves (particularly Noldor) are a much better analogy
to Medieval Jews in this context, although you still have the problem of
established Elven kingdoms (there wasn't any Jewish state) and the warlike
nature of the Elves (usually not their fault, but they seemed to be pretty much
constantly fighting.) The parallels include being exiled from their homeland,
being in a fallen state as a people (it's pretty clear from Scripture that the
Jews considered the fall of Jerusalem, both times, a consequence of moral
decline and divine punishment) but still the chosen people (Elves by the Valar,
Jews by God); also an ancient, widely revered literary tradition (but then
Hebrew was NOT a respected scholarly language in Christendom until the
Renaissance, unlike the status of Quenya) and a strong role in the foundation
of the numerically prevalent value systems (Dunedain and Christian/Muslim,
respectively). Finally, like many Christians blamed the Jews for the death of
Christ as well as developing a host of anti-Semitic superstitions, Men had
become estranged from Elves and distrusted Elven "magic."
Nevertheless, I cannot believe that Tolkien had Medieval Jews in mind as
a model for any of his cultures - there are too many incompatibilities. No
group in Tolkien is as fundamentally legalistic as Jewish culture, for one, nor
do any of them seem overly concerned with Eru/God. Likewise, I can't believe
that Tolkien had Byzantium in mind as a model for Minas Tirith, except maybe in
the vaguest sense of an archetype of the bulwark against Eastern hordes - the
cultures are simply too, too different. And Arnor as Rome, the enslaver of half
the world and most corrupt government in Western history? Sorry, I just can't
think of Elendil as a Caesar (or a Scipio for that matter) or of ANY of the
Dunedain as a Nero.
Please not that I am not attacking the original poster for making the
comparison - I am simply questioning the accuracy.
Bruce Tucker
Tuck...@urvax.urich.edu
Tuck...@urvax.bitnet
Carl F. Hostetter
> Finally, as a linguist, I
> have to say that Black Speech bears considerable similarity to TURKISH.
As a Tolkienian linguist (with very limited knowledge of Turkish), I'd
greatly appreciate it if you could enumerate some of the similarities
between Turkish and the Black Speech. Are there lexical and grammatical
similarities, or just phonological resemblances? Specifically, can you
comment on the two known phrases in Black Speech:
1) The Ring Inscription (Black Speech):
Ash nazg durbatuluuuk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluuuk
agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
"One ring to rule them all,
one ring to find them,
one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them."
2) The curse of the Mordor-orc (Debased Black Speech):
Ugluuk u bagronk sha pushdug Saruman-glob buub-hosh skai!
"[Ugluk,] To the dung-pit with stinking Saruman-filth --
pig-guts gah!"
--
|===================================================================|
| Carl F. Hostetter ca...@class.gsfc.nasa.gov |
| |
| Ars longa, vita brevis. |
| The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne. |
| "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take |
| such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." |
|===================================================================|
James Kuyper Jr
> Gondor/Byzantine Empire: BOTH are the Eastern half of a greater
political
> unit. Gondor is the eastern (technically, south-eastern) half of the
old
> Numenorean Empire (established in Middle-earth after the fall of
Numenor).
> BOTH were considered in some way subordinate to their counterparts.
Gondor
> was second after Arnor. Constantinople was the second capital of the
Roman
> Empire. BOTH survived the destruction of their counterparts. Gondor
still
You've pointed out more similarities than I first thought of, but I
still don't think they are sufficient to justify much discussion.
However, the quote above contains two errors. First, the Byzantine
Empire was the eastern half of the Roman empire; it was not
particularly closely related to the Holy Roman empire, except in that
both claimed to be the legitimate heirs of the original Roman empire.
Second, Gondor was not subordinate to Arnor. Remember that the army
that the Witch King used to handily destroy Arnor, was itself easily
destroyed by the army sent out by Gondor, which represented only a
fraction of their full strength. The land of Gondor, for reasons not
made clear by Tolkien, was apparently able to support a much larger
population than Arnor.
Jed Wyrick
>won) and most especially Dwarves = Jews.
>
> My reasons for opposing the latter in particular are many. The
>relationship of Judaism to Christianity was utterly unlike the Elves' and
>Humans' feelings and ignorance towards the Dwarves' completely alien beliefs.
No? What about blood libels, race theory etc?
>The Dwarves' civilization was younger than the Elves' and comparable to
>Humans', while Jewish culture was far, far older than Christian or Turk.
Actually, the Dwarf fathers awoke prior to the Elvish awakening at
Cuvienen (sp) but were subsequently put back to sleep so as not to spoil
the idea that the Elves were the "first born."
>Dwarves hated Orcs almost as much as Elves did, while Judaism and Islam co-
>existed far more cordially than either with Christianity.
Tolkien explicitly says that "in some places wicked dwarves made
alliances with the goblins"--although because this comes from the Hobbit,
the supposedly "unreliable" source, some of you will probably reject
this...(although you can also see it in the Silmarillion). Of course
these alliances are described as "wicked," but that's consistent.
Finally, while both
>Dwarves and Jews are "associated with precious metals" the cultures are
>otherwise totally opposite. Dwarves are renowned for mining, engineering,
>crafts, and warfare, in about that order, while Medieval Jews were known much
>more for commercial trade and philosophy than mining or engineering, and didn't
>practice warfare at all as a group.
I agree that there are some important differences. But this does not
affect the premise that Dwarves are coded as Jews. Consider:
1 The Seven rings which were used for "breeding" money/gold--a typical
claim against the Jews (and the fascination with the number 7 in general)
2. their status as merchants, wanderers, displaced persons
3. especially with the Nauglamir (sp) the "necklace of the Dwarves" there
are references to the Nibelung story--Mime the "petty" dwarf (a character in
Wagner's Ring) etc.--and everyone knows that Alberich and Mime in Wagner
are coded as Jews. Basically, the necklace of the Dwarves shares many
similarities with Alberich's ring (as does the One ring, and also the
Seven). Incidentally, I think that this whole idea of the rings being used
for different purposes by different races or sexes comes from Wagner--ie
the rings magnify the powers that are already present in the
person--love in the case of a woman, gold for Alberich, etc.
4. The Dwarves are definitely monotheistic, and worship Aule. Granted
this does not come off so well in the Silmarillion, for he is only a
dewiurge (as is Morgoth) and not The Creator Eru.
5. the recolonization of Khazad-dum does recall some sort of Zionistic
return, as does the return to the Lonely Mountain.
6. Gimli's trip to the West does have shades of conversion-ideology
I do agree that all of this is not consistent or 100%, and I like the
idea that the Elves also share in this "chosen people" mentality--but
they seem to represent the glorify one side of the Jewish being, while
the Dwarves often take on the more denegrated side of this experience.
Jedediah
wyr...@husc.harvard.edu
Petteri Sulonen
>THE PARALLELS I OBSERVE between Middle-earth and our own World
[deleted to save space]
Sure, those are the 'obvious parallels' and I (for one) _did_ notice them --
and still do not consider your idea very valid or interesting.
Consider this: JRRT wanted to write a fantasy and mythology in the North-
Western tradition or 'spirit'. There are a couple of essential elements
there: (1) the cruel Enemy came from the East, and was opposed by the 'good
people' near the Western Sea, (2) a memory of the 'good Empire' persists,
although only remnants are still in existence.
This, IMO, is enough to account for the 'parallels' without drawing any
more comparisons. What could it add to our understanding or enjoyment of
the stories?
In a work of this scope you could find points to support almost any
parallel. For the sake of the argument, the plan of medieval Baghdad
was quite close to Minas Tirith -- it even had a 'Rammas Echor' to house
the people around the central citadel. (Please don't start to argue this
point -- I just brought it up to show how easy it is to draw parallels;
I'm aware of the inconsistencies with this "theory".)
-- Petteri
s
Petteri Sulonen
>were described as being extraordinarily brutal. Finally, as a linguist, I
>have to say that Black Speech bears considerable similarity to TURKISH.
Would you mind elaborating on this? It would be very interesting if it were
true. I'm unconvinced...
-- Petteri
Petteri Sulonen
>I myself am not really interested in the intentionality of all this, but
>rather the way in which events/characters/places in mytho-history get coded
>as events etc. from "real" history. But all you literalists will likely
>have a problem with this...
I'm not sure what you mean by 'literalist', but I for one don't have a
problem with that. On the contrary. I'm sure a structural analysis of
tLotR compared to that of Western mythology would be interesting, and
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they'd fit into the same pattern.
It seems that the structure of Westerns is very similar to tLotR
(except that East and West are reversed).
>For those of you who don't, I would add that the Haradrim are
>perhaps coded as Arabs and sometimes even as black Africans, and the Dwarves
>certainly are to a large extent coded as Jews. I have much to say on the
>latter, so if you are interested...
I'm interested. I'm glad you put in the 'to a large extent', because IMO
many of the essentials of the way Jews are coded in Western thought is
lacking. Sure, we have a diaspora, but other than that...? A secret language?
Yes. But IMO the defining point of Jewry in Western thought (non-Jew, I'm
not referring to Jewish self-image) is that of guilt, mystery, envy, and
oppression. Guilt, because they're blamed for the 'murder' of Christ.
Mystery, because of their 'alien' culture, language, religion, and laws.
Envy, because they did very well for themselves economically (having a
practical monopoly on banking and international trade for centuries).
Oppression, because of all of the above. I don't see any of this with
the Dwarves -- they're regarded mostly as superb craftsmen, clannish,
and somewhat greedy.
Of course, the latter two attributes are often applied to Jews, but
I don't think it's enough to call it a true 'coding' of them as such.
As to the Haradrim, so little is said about them, that either interpretation
could be applied. I don't think there's enough to go on, though.
-- Petteri
Petteri Sulonen
>Yes indeed, I think the Haradrim are possibly Arabs, or Saracens. Regarding
What really bothers me (and probably most other 'snotty experts')
is your use of 'are'. It seems to imply concious allegory by JRRT,
which is a sensitive issue -- denied by JRRT and rather viciously
denied by some of his followers (yes, including me).
On the other hand, if you're talking about coding (as Jedediah was),
things are altogether different.
>morphology. Like the Jews in medieval Europe, the dwarves pretty much keep
>to themselves. Both have associations with precious metals and gems. And,
>both have a history of stout resistence of persecution. In anticipation of
>objections, I hasten to add that the Eddaic element in Tolkien's dwarves
>(ie, their names) issuperficial and represents a Westron translation of the
>more foreign Dwarvish originals. I think the key correlation is the
>"foreignness" factor. Medieval Europeans regarded the Jews as "foreign,"
>much as the men and elves regarded the dwarves as "foreign." Dwarves have
>a grim, mysterious, deep "Old Testament" feel about them.
I think we have here an example of a 'negotiated reading'. (Or, OTOH, maybe
my reading is the negotiated one.) I think you're adding your meanings of
the Jews into what you read about the Dwarves. I don't see anything Jewish
about them -- in fact, they seem to have much of a Viking-ish feel to them.
The Jews never (in medieval history or myth, that is) fought against The
Enemy alongside with the rest of the 'free people', whereas the Dwarves
did. Another essential, incompatible element.
To reiterate: I believe the similarities are coincidence, and not even
cultural coding, let alone intentional allegory.
-- Petteri
STEVE SCHAPER
rr> Does anybody know of any parallels ever having been drawn between
rr> places and events in LOTR and real historical events along the
rr> following lines?
rr>
rr> Gondor.............Byzantine Empire Arnor..............(Holy) Roman
rr> Empire Minas Tirith.......Constantinople Mordor.............Ottoman
rr> Empire Orcs...............Turks (no offense) etc.
rr>
rr> If so, is there any good evidence for this being intentional, and if
rr> so, what the intentions might have been (other than their being
rr> interesting)?
I would be surprised if it was intentional. On the other hand, the invasions
of Europe by the Muslims certainly shaped the psyche and imagination of
Europeans such that that ouvre would have influenced Tolkien as well.
-> Alice4Mac 2.3b4 E QWK Eval:19Jan94
Richard Wang
James Kuyper Jr <kuy...@next14pg2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Second, Gondor was not subordinate to Arnor. Remember that the army
>that the Witch King used to handily destroy Arnor, was itself easily
>destroyed by the army sent out by Gondor, which represented only a
>fraction of their full strength.
We're talking two different periods now. When the two realms were
established, Gondor was certainly subordinate to Arnor; Elendil ruled in
the north, and was High King, and his sons shared the rule in the south.
After the Second Age ended, of course, Elendil was dead, and the
Witch-king destroyed the three factional kingdoms that resulted from the
division of Arnor.
>The land of Gondor, for reasons not
>made clear by Tolkien, was apparently able to support a much larger
>population than Arnor.
I think they're called "coastal plains" and "lots of rivers." Gondor
might simply have been more fertile than Arnor. Actually, I can't
explain it either; just grasping at straws.
Petteri Sulonen
>cultures are simply too, too different. And Arnor as Rome, the enslaver of half
>the world and most corrupt government in Western history? Sorry, I just can't
>think of Elendil as a Caesar (or a Scipio for that matter) or of ANY of the
>Dunedain as a Nero.
Hey now, you're dismissing one of the foundation stones of Western thought
pretty easily there... Sure, Rome wasn't perfect, but it wasn't _that_ bad
either. They did manage to successfully administrate an empire that was
huge even by modern standards, without the benefit of modern technology,
ensuring peace and relative prosperity for most citizens and even decent
conditions for slaves (an endemic condition in the world of the time),
fostered the arts, crafts, and science etc. I for one could easily see
Ar-Pharazoon as one of the nastier emperors, and Aragorn Elessar as
one of the better ones.
What do you think about the last golden age of the Empire, namely, from
Hadrian to Marcus Aurelius? I don't think that goes as an example
of bad government and enslavement.
-- Petteri
Aaron Clausen
>provoked. You people can really be simplistic! The point is not whether
>Minas Tirith matches up with Constantinople in every detail. God! I
>guess if Tolkien really wanted to make a conscious allusion, every western
>civ history geek would pipe up and correct him on his facts--"The Holy
>Roman Empire is neither holy nor Roman nor an empire."
>I myself am not really interested in the intentionality of all this, but
>rather the way in which events/characters/places in mytho-history get coded
>as events etc. from "real" history. But all you literalists will likely
>have a problem with this...
Well, since these kinds of things can be interpreted in many ways, I
imagine everybody has a great deal to say about it. If you can go around
matching Tolkien's world to our own, then you set yourself up for attack.
>For those of you who don't, I would add that the Haradrim are
>perhaps coded as Arabs and sometimes even as black Africans, and the Dwarves
>certainly are to a large extent coded as Jews. I have much to say on the
>latter, so if you are interested...
Tolkien himself said that writers do not write in a vacuum. However,
some of the accusations are getting downright nasty. If you don't like
what the book represents, don't read it. If you see latent racism, then
by all means attack it, but be prepared to back up your allegations with
more than just personal interpretation.
Loren Williams
though, on JRRT's own observation in "On Fairy-Stories" that stories get
put together out of many disparate elements, and can be assembled in an
almost infinite number of ways. It may be wrong to say dogmatically,
"Gondor equals the Byzantine Empire," but there are certain parallels that
seem to indicate JRRT threw the "bones" of Roman history into the pot and
boiled them up. The Western Empire pretty much fell in the fifth century
and ended up fracturing into little kingdoms and realms, many of which were
very rustic and "uncivilized" compared to the Empire days. Rather like
Eriador during the war of the Ring? Byzantium managed to hang onto its
"imperial" heritage and "civilized," "urban" culture. Rather like Gondor?
I don't much care for the dwarves=Jews equation. Remember, Europe in those
days was full of ethnic groups that had been pushed aside by later
invasions. The Celts kept moving across Europe, ending up in the far West
and remote mountainous regions; the Basques ended up in the Pyrenees.
Given the xenophobia and fondness for mountains that JRRT's dwarves
exhibit, I'm more inclined to think that the dwarves were a sort of
folkloric equivalent of those peoples, mixed in with the more well-known
northern European legends about dwarves and similar creatures.
And, lest we forget, JRRT was no slouch as a historian - it was an
important component of his academic field. He knew a hell of a lot more
than most of us do about the history and culture of post-Rome Europe. And
he wasn't averse to playing games with that information. The great
punch-line, of course, is at the end of the Akallabeth: " . . . but of
Mar-nu-Falmar that was whelmed in the waves, Akallabeth the Downfallen,
Atalante in the Eldarin tongue."
/ljw
sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
>In article <2oc16k$g...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>,
>James Kuyper Jr <kuy...@next14pg2.wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>
>>Second, Gondor was not subordinate to Arnor. Remember that the army
>>that the Witch King used to handily destroy Arnor, was itself easily
>>destroyed by the army sent out by Gondor, which represented only a
>>fraction of their full strength.
>
>We're talking two different periods now. When the two realms were
>established, Gondor was certainly subordinate to Arnor; Elendil ruled in
>the north, and was High King, and his sons shared the rule in the south.
>After the Second Age ended, of course, Elendil was dead, and the
>Witch-king destroyed the three factional kingdoms that resulted from the
>division of Arnor.
>
>>The land of Gondor, for reasons not
>>made clear by Tolkien, was apparently able to support a much larger
>>population than Arnor.
>
>I think they're called "coastal plains" and "lots of rivers." Gondor
>might simply have been more fertile than Arnor. Actually, I can't
>explain it either; just grasping at straws.
>
about geographic determinism in Middle Earth. But we do, so let's keep this
thread alive. I suspect that the fate of Arnor indicates not that its
population was smaller, but that the hold of the Dunedain was weaker. Eriador
was definitely a less temperate place than the areas further south, so probably
it was less productive agriculturally. I have to review what I've read about
the Numenorean infiltration of Middle Earth before the Fall of Numenor, but as
I recall they didn't penetrate far beyond the coast until the coming of
Elendil. This was probably because Eriador was the domain of Gil-Galad, ally
of the Numenoreans, so they had no need or desire to conquer or explore it.
However they might have penetrated further in the South, which didn't have the
same numbers of elves as the North, and where the "lesser" men were easily
subjugated. Wasn't Orthanc made or used by the Numenoreans? Or was that only
in Isildur's time and after? At any rate, the South was less resistent to
Numenorean imperialism at that time, so Gondor might have had a head start on
Arnor to begin with.
I think it's also fair to infer that the north was less heavily settled
*by Numenoreans*. It remains populated by the time of the War of the Ring, or
else who were the Rangers protecting. But by and large these were not the
Dunedain or their direct descendents. I think Elendil came to ME with fewer
people than his sons, and founded a kingdom in an area filled with a lot more
people who weren't used to having large, intimidating "Men of the West" bossing
them around. I think this is one of the big reasons that Arnor fell apart in
the first millenium of the Third Age. Other factors might include the deaths
of so many of the great leaders of the North at the Gladden Fields, and the
effects of intermarriage with the common people. They fought a few civil wars
over this in Gondor, so I suspect that intermarriage was a serious exception
to the rule there. This may have had something to do with being so close to
Mordor, with the knowledge that a lot of the native peoples of ME had fought
for Sauron. When Gondor's princes brought wives of "lesser" race back from the
wars to the East, it must have seemed like they were marrying the enemy. The
natives of Eriador, having been under the influence of Elendil and Gil-Galad,
might not have been suspect in the same way as the Easterlings and the
Southrons. So intermarriage might have been far more common in Arnor: not
among the royal family of Arnor-Arthedain, but perhaps quite a bit among their
noble followers, and even more in Cardolen and Rhudaur after the split. This
could have created even more divisions, undermining the network of Dunedain
king/steward to Duneda vassal that became so strong in Gondor (this strong
bond is still plainly visible in TLotR when the armies of Gondor's southern
allies march into Minas Tirith: a glorious scene).
Also, Gondor was more secure strategically than Arnor, and because of
constant war either East or South its armies remained strong and were usually
unified, except in the case of the above mentioned civil wars. It had less
of an area to defend, and was better about defending it. Bordered by the White
Mountains to the North and the sea south and west, all there was left to defend
were the provinces in the East, which were heavily fortified. The Corsairs
were a naval threat, and caused a lot of damage, but the aggressiveness of the
heirs of Anarion was a strong barrier. Arnor was bounded by wide open spaces
that I doubt it ever controlled completely: the area was too vast. From the
endless northern waste to the threatening peaks of the Misty Mountains in the
East to the large coastal region to the Southwest there must have been simply
too much land for the relatively few survivors of the Northern Dunedain to
police. I'm sure there were still orcs in the mountains, scattered but still
dangerous, and none knew what might lie in the north, where the Witch-King
appeared not too long after. And while the ranks of the Numenoreans dwindled
in relation to those of their "common" subjects, their influence over all that
area waned as well, until they were the dependent on the aid of their subjects
in war.Gondor retained a large relatively pure Dunedain population, and
fielded incredibly strong armies because of it. And because of the unity and
loyalty of the southern Dunedain and their allies, the kingdom could survive
its internal strife and later the death of the last legitimate King without
falling apart in the way that Arnor did.
Well, I've said a lot and I hope some of you managed to read the whole
thing without skipping ahead. I still think that climate had a great deal to
do with the fates of the two kingdoms of the Dunedain. Being a spoiled race,
I think most of them preferred to live in the south where it was warm, and
so many may have stayed after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the 2nd age.
I think the northern climate, with the cold and long winter nights and such,
would have done a lot to dampen the patriotic fervor of those Dunedain who went
back to settle. That also explains the cool, serious attitude of the Rangers
next to Boromir, for example, who was a more fiery spirit. But of course they
had led extremely different lives. Send me any comments or questions. The
answer to the most obvious one is: I'm a college student; I write too many
papers; therefore I have a tendency to ramble on developing and defending ideas
and such.
Rob
sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
Patrick G. Matthews
of the Gladden Fields. We all know the story: Isildur sets off for Arnor,
but gets waylaid by orcs and dies after losing the Ring.
Unfinished Tales reports that nearly all of the knights Isildur took with
him on the trip perished, and that the Dunedain population of Arnor never
recovered from this blow.
Albert Yang
: One reason why Gondor had a larger population than Arnor was the Disaster
: of the Gladden Fields. We all know the story: Isildur sets off for Arnor,
: but gets waylaid by orcs and dies after losing the Ring.
: Unfinished Tales reports that nearly all of the knights Isildur took with
: him on the trip perished, and that the Dunedain population of Arnor never
: recovered from this blow.
I wonder what the population of Gondor was at that time. In ROTK, Aragorn
was marching on Mordor with seven thousand men, which was described as
being a minute part of its army in the days of its glory (which was
sometime in the first third of the Third Age). This would seem to
indicate that Gondor had a pretty decent sized population at the end
of the Second Age. I would imagine that the population of Arnor had to
have been pretty large at that time too. Does it say anywhere what
Arnor's population was compared to Gondor?
The only reason I can think of why the loss of Isildur's company (around
two hundred, I believe) would be that most of Arnor's men were killed
in the war, though Gondor doesn't seem to have been so depleted.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Yang |"Darth Vader can't be Luke Skywalker's father;
Internet: apy...@ucdavis.edu | they don't have the same last name!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Hayes
> One thing that makes such analogies a little hard to swallow is the
>attempt to make secondary analogies in order to tie every element in both
>worlds together. In other words, Gondor = Byzantium and Arnor = the fallen
>Western Empire (which I think makes much more since than the Holy Roman
>Empire) is worth discussion, and even Turks = Orcs makes since if looked at
>from the point of view of their enemies (makes one wonder if Orcs really
>weren't evil at all, just portrayed that way by elves and elf-friends.) But
>I have a much harder time swallowing Wainriders = Huns (the Wainriders never
>won) and most especially Dwarves = Jews.
While one can make such analogies with events in the historical world, I
don't think it is legitimate to say that Tolkein intended his work to be
read in such a way. Given the time that LotR was written, one could see some
kind of analogy with the rise of Nazism, but Tolkein explicitly denied this.
The ring could be seen as a stmbol of atomic power and the threat of nuclear
destruction, but again, Tolkein was not writing the book as an anti-nuclear
polemic, nor as an anti-Nazi polemic (the latter is unlikely, especially as
at one time he is said to have supported Franco).
The Rohirrim, at least in their language, in some ways represented the Anglo-
Saxons, but in their horse culture they probably didn't. The Hobbits could
represent the comforts of English academia, and English phlegm, who aren't
easily roused, but when they are roused, display a lot of determination in
getting the job done. Tolkein clearly drew on his imagination and his
experience, as all of us do. And in a sense we can read into his stories the
same values from our imagination and experience. The various kinds of
attitudes that people have to the ring can be applied to any kind of power,
including kinds of power that Tolkein could not have dreamed or or imagined.
It can apply to political, economic or military power, to nuclear power, and
various other kinds of power. In part that is the attraction of Tolkein's
work. It is universal.
============================================================
Steve Hayes, Editorial Department, University of South Africa
P.O. Box 392, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa
Internet: haye...@risc1.unisa.ac.za Fidonet: 5:7106/20.1
steve...@p1.f20.n7106.z5.fidonet.org
Jed Wyrick
Who says I'm attacking Tolkien? I hardly see "latent racism," I'm just
pointing out that the Dwarves share too many characteristics with the
Jews to have us just talk about coincidence. Actually, Tolkien is often
himself more sensitive to the problem in the LotR than he is in the
Silmarillion--and here I would have to say that Mime "the petty dwarf" is
the classic anti-Semitic type. However, in the LotR Tolkien takes pains
to show that there are two sides to the Elvish-Dwarf conflict, and Gimli
and Durin's house as a whole is presented in pretty favorable
light--although Gimli
does almost have to "convert" at the end and go with Legolas to Eressa.
Despite that, (and not including the Hobbit in this, which has a far more
negative portrayal of Dwarves), the LotR is enlightened and attempts to
clear up old prejudices of the Elves. It is only reasonable that such
prejudices would show up in the Silmarillion, which seems almost like a
kind of national epic for (and composed by?) the Elves of Beleriand.
By the way, whoever suggested that the Celts or the Basques were a more
likely parallel for the Dwarves, there is a lot to be accounted for. Why
do the Dwarves have no nature-loving side (cf.Druids et al.)? Second,
neither the Celts nor the Basques are monotheistic, while the Dwarves are!!
Third, neither the Celts nor the Basques are particularly known for their
economic connivings and money-hungriness, as are the Dwarves (and of
course the Jews have always been depicted in this light).
Jedediah
wyr...@husc.harvard.edu
Loren Williams
Wyrick) wrote:
> By the way, whoever suggested that the Celts or the Basques were a more
> likely parallel for the Dwarves, there is a lot to be accounted for. Why
> do the Dwarves have no nature-loving side (cf.Druids et al.)? Second,
> neither the Celts nor the Basques are monotheistic, while the Dwarves are!!
> Third, neither the Celts nor the Basques are particularly known for their
> economic connivings and money-hungriness, as are the Dwarves (and of
> course the Jews have always been depicted in this light).
I am the guilty party. I certainly didn't mean to propose an equation
(Dwarves=Celts or Dwarves=Basques). I also added in that first posting
that JRRT was mixing in a lot of Northern European folkloric beliefs. The
most direct parallel I can think of is that of the kobold, which (I
believe) is a gnomish-type creature associated with mines and such. Re the
Celts and Basques - the peoples that supplanted them throughout Europe
often looked down upon them and mythologized them at the same time. The
"fairy-folk" and "little people" beliefs throughout Europe and in the
British Isles often get connected with them. Another good parallel is that
they often ended up in the parts of Europe that no one else wanted for the
moment - the Basques in the Pyrenees, the Celts in the Scottish Highlands
and Welsh mountains.
A relevant point here is their *linguistic* difference from their
successors. Xenophobia often stems from not being able to talk to your
neighbors; if communication is necessary, either a lingua franca springs
up, or one of the participants has to learn the other's language. Here, I
think the parallel with the Basques is not bad. JRRT mentions that the
Dwarves were averse to sharing their language with outsiders, and usually
spoke the language of their neighbors when they had to deal with them.
This is rather like the situation with the Basques, although I don't think
the Basques were *averse* to others learning their language; it was simply
that their language bore little or no resemblance to the languages around
them.
I'm not sure if your rather romantic view of the Druid religion (viz.
"nature-loving") is relevant. From what we can tell, the Druids were
pretty big on stone also, if we can assume that they had a hand in the many
stone circles/menhirs/monoliths dotting Europe. Certainly the Dwarves were
"nature-lovers" in their way, if you can call mountains "natural." Their
antipathy to forests/greenery/trees comes courtesy of JRRT, rooted in their
creation by Aule without the help (or even the knowledge) of his wife
Yavanna. The earlier versions of the _Silmarillion_ don't show Dwarves in
a very sympathetic light; it wasn't until the conception evolved that we
get a picture of them as a coherent people.
I agree, the Dwarves' veneration of Aule/Mahal has no real parallel in
either Basque or Celtic culture. But how do you know they were
monotheistic? They're venerating the demiurge that created them. Apart
from that, we know *nothing* about their knowledge of the Valar or belief
in them. I suspect that, as many other posters have pointed out, questions
of "belief" are moot in the first three Ages of Middle-Earth. The Powers
of Creation are living right next door, as it were. Asking a Dwarf if he
"believed" in Mahal/Aule would be like asking the man in the street if he
"believed" in Bill Clinton. He'd stare at you strangely and mutter, "Of
course I do. He's a real person, after all."
The question of avarice - well, I don't know. Xenophobia breeds a lot of
negative stereotypes, and any "outsider" group seen to have any kind of
wealth often gets labeled "greedy." Of course, I think JRRT's Dwarves are
*really* greedy.
Enough. Sorry for the length of the message.
/ljw
James Kuyper Jr
> One reason why Gondor had a larger population than Arnor was the
Disaster
> of the Gladden Fields. We all know the story: Isildur sets off for
Arnor,
> but gets waylaid by orcs and dies after losing the Ring.
>
> Unfinished Tales reports that nearly all of the knights Isildur took
with
> him on the trip perished, and that the Dunedain population of Arnor
never
> recovered from this blow.
Actually, UT says that "the greater part of the army of Arnor returned
to Eriador" before Isildur ever set out for Imladris. Only 200 knights
accompanied him, to be destroyed at the Gladden Fields. I just cannot
see this as a blow sufficient to cause a decline of Arnor, unless it
started out much smaller than Gondor in the first place.
I think that is likely that Arnor did start out smaller. Elendil only
brought four ships there. Isildur and Anarion brought a total of five
ships to Gondor. More importantly, there was a fairly large number of
Numenorian emigres already at the mouths of the Anduin, and most of
them were among the Faithful. The settlements at Vinyalonde (later Lond
Daer) were probably smaller, and many there might have been loyal to
the King's Men, given the importance of the wood they cut for the
building of the Great Armament.
James Kuyper Jr
haye...@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
..
> The ring could be seen as a stmbol of atomic power and the threat of
nuclear
> destruction, but again, Tolkein was not writing the book as an
anti-nuclear
> polemic, nor as an anti-Nazi polemic (the latter is unlikely,
especially as
Agreed, particularly since the timing is all wrong. The LotR was
essentially complete, well before anybody except a few physicists and
science fiction fans had even heard of an atomic bomb. (One science
fiction story was published during the war, describing atomic bombs;
the FBI went crazy trying to figure out where the leak occurred.)
sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
Only about 200 knights were with Isildur and his sons on the journey home from
Gondor, when the massacre occured. I expect most of the armies of the North
had been sent on before them, and reached Arnor safely. So I don't think the
loss of those 200 odd men was so damaging demographically. However, a lot of
those knights were probably the cream of the crop, Arnor's finest, as it were,
so the disaster might have seriously diminished the central leadership of
the Arnorian military. This could have had repercussions on the unity of
Arnor's elite, which might have had an impact on the sucession crisis eight
generations down the road when Arnor split apart. Even more importantly,
Isildur and his three eldest sons were strong leaders, especially Elendur, the
eldest, and had they survived their descendents could have created a strong,
united royal family that would have ruled more effectively than the descendents
of Valandil, the youngest brother who was too young to go to the war, and
therefore survived to inherit the throne. On the other hand the brothers might
have fought amongst each other, and things might have started falling apart
even sooner. We have no way of knowing, of course, but UT definitely leaves
you with the impression that if Elendur had survived, the whole Third Age might
have gone differently.
IO3...@maine.maine.edu
and two hundred knights. All were killed.
In the Tale of Years, ROTK apendix B, in 1636 SA the Great Plague
devastates Gondor, spreads north and west, and "many parts of
Eriador become desolate".
So, the reason Arnor's population is so low is due to disease, and the
ever present war with Angmar and between themselves.
Richard Wang
<sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu> wrote:
[long but well-thought-out post snipped]
>thing without skipping ahead. I still think that climate had a great deal to
>do with the fates of the two kingdoms of the Dunedain. Being a spoiled race,
>I think most of them preferred to live in the south where it was warm, and
>so many may have stayed after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the 2nd age.
>I think the northern climate, with the cold and long winter nights and such,
>would have done a lot to dampen the patriotic fervor of those Dunedain who went
>back to settle. That also explains the cool, serious attitude of the Rangers
>next to Boromir, for example, who was a more fiery spirit. But of course they
I thought your analysis was quite good, and so I hate to pick out the one
thing I didn't like and discuss it... But I think you're reaching a bit
with this climate thing. The Faithful can't really be characterized
as a "spoiled" race; and since when did bad weather makes people less
patriotic? I admit there are temperamental changes attendant with
variations in climate (I'm from San Diego, where people are friendly and
relaxed; but I go to school in Boston, where people are for the most part
rude and uptight), but, if anything, adversity draws people closer together.
Richard Wang
Patrick G. Matthews <matt...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>One reason why Gondor had a larger population than Arnor was the Disaster
>of the Gladden Fields. We all know the story: Isildur sets off for Arnor,
>but gets waylaid by orcs and dies after losing the Ring.
>
>Unfinished Tales reports that nearly all of the knights Isildur took with
>him on the trip perished, and that the Dunedain population of Arnor never
>recovered from this blow.
If any of those warriors had been female (i.e. wombs; this isn't intended
as denigration, just a simple statement of the facts of reproduction.
Men are much less essential than women.), and if Isildur's company had
been, say, 100 times larger, I might buy this argument; but surely a few
hundred men wouldn't have made a dent in the population of Arnor. What
Gladden Fields probably did do was to eliminate almost all of Arnor's
strong leaders, thereby rendering it less united, less confident, and
less able to resist either foreign invasion or civil war.
sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
>In article <2ohjrb$6...@news.cc.oberlin.edu>,
> <sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu> wrote:
>[long but well-thought-out post snipped]
>
>>thing without skipping ahead. I still think that climate had a great deal to
>>do with the fates of the two kingdoms of the Dunedain. Being a spoiled race,
>>I think most of them preferred to live in the south where it was warm, and
>>so many may have stayed after the defeat of Sauron at the end of the 2nd age.
>>I think the northern climate, with the cold and long winter nights and such,
>>would have done a lot to dampen the patriotic fervor of those Dunedain who went
>>back to settle. That also explains the cool, serious attitude of the Rangers
>>next to Boromir, for example, who was a more fiery spirit. But of course they
>
>I thought your analysis was quite good, and so I hate to pick out the one
>thing I didn't like and discuss it... But I think you're reaching a bit
>with this climate thing. The Faithful can't really be characterized
>as a "spoiled" race; and since when did bad weather makes people less
>patriotic? I admit there are temperamental changes attendant with
>variations in climate (I'm from San Diego, where people are friendly and
>relaxed; but I go to school in Boston, where people are for the most part
>rude and uptight), but, if anything, adversity draws people closer together.
>
serious post. But I do think that a lot can be attributed to the cold northern
climate. I imagine Numenor must have had lovely weather, so the faithful might
not have been as comfortable in Eriador as in the south. You're definitely
right, however, that the cold of the north would probably have served to unite
the relatively few Dunedain (relative to the other peoples living there)
rather than drive them apart. But the differences in temperament between the
Rangers and the knights of Gondor are quite striking, and while this would have
been affected by the harsh lives of the northern Dunedain, I think it's not
inconceivable that the weather accentuated these regional differences. Quite
possibly this link between climate, character, and history is actually a
literary device used by Tolkien to develop his themes in the story, which
would make sense since he was far more interested in telling a good story than
in writing a comprehensive, realistic history. But I just love trying to
analyze and justify the history he gives us. (By the way, I too have observed
the variations in regional temperament; I grew up in Boston, where people are
quite definitely rude and uptight, and I go to school in Ohio, which is, well,
different).
>--
>Richard Wang
>rw...@husc.harvard.edu
>
>"Eve was not the first to pluck and sample the apple. Adam was first and
>he learned by this to put the blame on Eve."--Leto II,
>_God_Emperor_of_Dune_, Frank Herbert
Rob Harper
sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
ajan...@uwyo.edu
>>thing I didn't like and discuss it... But I think you're reaching a bit
>>with this climate thing. The Faithful can't really be characterized
>>as a "spoiled" race; and since when did bad weather makes people less
>>patriotic?
I imagine Numenor must have had lovely weather, so the faithful might
>not have been as comfortable in Eriador as in the south. You're definitely
>right, however, that the cold of the north would probably have served to unite
>the relatively few Dunedain (relative to the other peoples living there)
>rather than drive them apart.
There is one small weakness in the Climate theory. The Shire was in the North
Kingdom. If there is one place in Middle Earth that represents a flourishing
community it would be there. The inhabitants were friendly, the crops came in
regularly, and very seldom did they have a harsh winter. I think we need to
find another cause for the decline......As if war and plaque weren't enough.
sjh...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
mellower and more easy-going bunch than any of the "big people". The other
thing about the Shire was that it was rather unified ethnically, and
politically and economically it was remarkably stable, probably because the
Hobbits got along with each other a lot better than people ever will. There
were some considerable class differences, and some Hobbits could be mean or
overly ambitious, but their isolation from outside influence (largely aided by
the Rangers of the North Kingdom) protected them, until Saruman came around.
And even then the majority of the Hobbits were able to unite under Hobbit
leadership and throw the trouble-makers out, in spite of their peaceful nature.
They didn't face the same problems as the Dunedain of Arnor: disunity in the
face of attack, an ever dwindling number of those loyal to the crown. In the
Shire there was no elite group, and therefore no rivalry ensued as to who
should be a part of that elite. Again, I admit that the climate theory is a
stretch, but I still hold that it *might* have had some impact on the fate of
Arnor, especially if it was manipulated by the witch king. Both Gondor and
Arnor engaged in war and suffered from the plague, but the one dealt far better
than the other. I'm just musing over possible causes.
Petteri Sulonen
>Who says I'm attacking Tolkien? I hardly see "latent racism," I'm just
>pointing out that the Dwarves share too many characteristics with the
>Jews to have us just talk about coincidence. Actually, Tolkien is often
I disagree with you there. Sure, there are some attributes that Dwarves have
that are often attributed to Jews in Western thought (avarice, clannishness,
an alien culture) but none of the 'primary' attributes that define Jewry
in the Western mind. The Jews were thought to carry a burden of guilt for
Christ's death, they held a near monopoly on banking and international trade
and were consequently quite wealthy. These are the points upon which all the
rest of the "Jewish" attributes are based on -- and the Dwarves have none
of them.
-- Petteri
Roman M. Parparov
>Thank you, Jedediah! As a newcomer to this group, I'm very happy to learn
>that there are people who can reply to a theory using a civil tone! I was
>beginning to think that I should abandon this place as the domain of snotty
>"experts."
>
>Yes indeed, I think the Haradrim are possibly Arabs, or Saracens. Regarding
>linguist (I'm not an expert linguist, but that is my specialty) I do with
The only confusing thing is then putting Mordor in the place of Palestine and
the promised land and so Barad-dur is the Temple?? Jerusalem??
Or maybe it should be Mekka and Kaaba Temple (for the color suits now)
It can be also a proof of the negative relation of Tolkien to religion and
being an atheist..
>confidence state that Khuzdul (is this right?) is a rather obvious analog
>of a Semitic language, right down to the phonology and even the triliteral
>morphology. Like the Jews in medieval Europe, the dwarves pretty much keep
>to themselves. Both have associations with precious metals and gems. And,
>both have a history of stout resistence of persecution. In anticipation of
>objections, I hasten to add that the Eddaic element in Tolkien's dwarves
>(ie, their names) issuperficial and represents a Westron translation of the
Yes.. The language of Dwarves always seemed to me like having something
common with Hebrew, though it is more alike Georgian language. But the
parallels are rather interesting.
>more foreign Dwarvish originals. I think the key correlation is the
>"foreignness" factor. Medieval Europeans regarded the Jews as "foreign,"
>much as the men and elves regarded the dwarves as "foreign." Dwarves have
>a grim, mysterious, deep "Old Testament" feel about them.
>
Interesting point of view. Add to this Dwarves don't shave their beards, like
Judaics, wear caps (or hoods), were a people created from 7 fathers
(analogy with 3 fathers of the Jews), Khazad'Ur is the promised land,
Mount Zion, Mount Grizim etc.. (Dead Sea - Kheled-zaram?!)
And there Darin's realm = time of the FIRST Temple and the Balrog was the curse
of 586 BC - Babylonian invasion, and Thror's realm -Second Temple and Maccabees
and more and more analogies can be found.
>Whatever this all means, if it means anything at all, I present this as
>observation and speculation. I see parallels, I don't claim that there are
>any exact correlations. At any rate, the forces of Evil certainly tremble
>when elf and dwarf are allies!
>
Exactly *grin*
>Rolf Rockliff
>rroc...@indiana.edu
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
# Roman M. Parparov (Roma) # __/\__ "Phantom wanders over #
# Student In Electrical Engineering # \ / Europe, Phantom of #
# Technion - Israel Insitute Of Technology # /_ _\ Communism". #
# Haifa, Israel. # \/ ---Karl Marx. #
# email: c068...@techst02.technion.ac.il # !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #
*-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-*
James Kuyper Jr
parts of Eriador became desolate? This still points to the land of
Gondor being able to support a much higher population density than
Arnor. Human fertility being what it is, a few centuries is sufficient
to recover from even the worst plague; we're talking about a population
difference that has lasted for millennia, and continued long after
Angmar's defeat. Surely Arnor's struggle with Angmar was not
drastically more draining than Gondor's struggle with Mordor.
Maurystal Ravenclawe
>Kingdom. If there is one place in Middle Earth that represents a flourishing
>community it would be there. The inhabitants were friendly, the crops came in
>regularly, and very seldom did they have a harsh winter. I think we need to
>find another cause for the decline......As if war and plaque weren't enough.
Yes, we know that poor dental hygeine has been the downfall of many a great
empire.
Andrew McCormick "Feel it now, and don't resist,
sam...@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu this time the anger's better than the kiss
adar...@aol.com I must admit, when so inclined
I tend to lose it than confront my mind."
Chris Camfield
>There is one small weakness in the Climate theory. The Shire was in the North
>Kingdom. If there is one place in Middle Earth that represents a flourishing
>community it would be there. The inhabitants were friendly, the crops came in
>regularly, and very seldom did they have a harsh winter. I think we need to
>find another cause for the decline......As if war and plaque weren't enough.
I knew it! Arnor fell because of bad dental hygeine!!
I'm sorry, it had to be said... :)
--
Chris Camfield (ccam...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca)
"But just as black as white, Yeah and just as night is day
The light is gonna leave you, And you're gonna fade away"
(Hunters & Collectors, "Say Goodbye")
Robert Hill
The Shire was supposed to be at the same latitude as the English midlands,
say Oxford; Gondor must have been at a latitude comparable with that of,
at a guess, northern Italy. Even people brought up in England usually think
of England as a cold country. If Numenor also had an Italian climate (I can't
remember any evidence on the point) I can well imagine that its people
might have preferred to settle in Gondor rather than Arnor.
> .....As if war and plaque weren't enough.
You think they were brought down by tooth decay?
Sorry, couldn't resist :)
--
Robert Hill
"Though all my wares be trash, my heart is true."
- John Dowland, Fine Knacks for Ladies (1600)
Matt
1) Gondor did start out bigger than Arnor, having been settled by the
faithful for many years at Pelargir and its neighbourhood.
The King's men all settled further south at Umbar and beyond.
Somebody mentioned Lond Daer - but wasn't that settled in the time of
Aldarion before the political split in Numenor, and wasn't it abandoned
due to repeated storm-damage and depletion of the woods of Minhiriath?
(mentioned as a wild wooded region of few inhabitants).
2) Arnor was to have been the 'king's realm' but the situation after the
war with Sauron was radically different. Most of the Numenoreans were dead
and Arnor, being sparsely settled with Numenoreans to begin with, never
recovered. Also the Elvish kingdom never recovered - and no new men came to
fill the gap in Eriador's population left by the Elves.
3) Plague wiped out most of the inhabitants of Minhiriath, including Cardolan.
4) Climate was a factor: the south was more fertile.
5) Geography: Gondor was protected by mountains and the sea from interlopers.
6) A tradition of cultivation in the south. For centuries the local people
had enjoyed the protection of and trade with Numenor whereas the wild in
Eriador had only been cultivated in a few places.
7) The fact that Gondor was a strong kingdom meant that its subjects had
peace, which brings prosperity.
8) If you look at Eriador it has Dunlendings in the south-east; the abandoned
land of Eregion in the east; Trolls and the descendants of the men of Rhudaur
(? the villages eaten by the 3 trolls in the Hobbit?) in the north-east plus
the hidden vale of Rivendell; the plague-ravaged region of Minhiriath where,
nevertheless, the 'tramps' described during the description of Bree lived;
Bree and the Shire; remnants of Elves in Lindon and the Grey Havens; dwarves in
the Ered Luin; the Forodwaith in Forochel.
That still leaves a lot of uninhabited hills, woods, and plains on the road
east of Bree and to the north and south of it, but these had mostly been
depopulated by war and returned to a wild state. On the whole, you get the
impression that more men lived in Rhovannion than in Eriador which is supposed
to be really wild. Tougher men of course.
9) Eregion and Khazad-dum were once thriving commercial and population centres
again devastated by war.
The history of Eriador seems to be one of continual war and disaster leading
to depopulation of most of it.
Matt
--
Matthew Woodford.....mjw@rowan.cov.ac.uk.....Gollum the Great!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Hansel said to Gretel 'You can really be a bitch, I've wasted my life on a
legend, When my one and only love was the wicked witch.'"
-> Laurie Anderson
Matt
1) The Dunedain were slow to reproduce. It seems the 'higher' the race in
Tolkien's world the less fecund they are. Therefore we are looking at quite
a large settled population of Numenoreans around the lower Anduin (and all
along the coasts of Belfalas?) before the Akallabeth in order to account for
the difference in population between the north and the south kingdoms. Gondor's
population would have grown at a greater rate because of more favourable
conditions and of course having a larger population to begin with but my
impression at least is that the armies of Gondor were huge compared to those
of Arnor, which suggests a bigger base to start with.
2) Arnor wasn't *that* small: I forgot to mention the Rangers themselves as
a population group in Eriador. They must have lived in small communities
somewhere in Arthedain.
Re dwarves:
They are based on legends of Dwarfs and gnomes far more than on Jews.
Look at Peer Gynt - 'In the Hall of the Mountain King'.
Jed Wyrick
>In <2okkbb$4...@scunix2.harvard.edu> wyr...@husc10.harvard.edu (Jed Wyrick) writes:
>
>>Who says I'm attacking Tolkien? I hardly see "latent racism," I'm just
>>pointing out that the Dwarves share too many characteristics with the
>>Jews to have us just talk about coincidence.
>
>that are often attributed to Jews in Western thought (avarice, clannishness,
>an alien culture) but none of the 'primary' attributes that define Jewry
>in the Western mind.
They certainly are. The Jews were the West's internal "Other." For what
other reason would there be so much effort spent proclaiming their guilt
in the death of Christ?
The Jews were thought to carry a burden of guilt for
>Christ's death, they held a near monopoly on banking and international trade
>and were consequently quite wealthy. These are the points upon which all the
>rest of the "Jewish" attributes are based on -- and the Dwarves have none
>of them.
You fail to take note of the way in which the Dwarves are primarily known
for their economic pursuits--including their monopoly on precious metals
like mithril. By the way, while there's no precise parallel to the "Jewish
killing of Christ" with regard to the Dwarves, there are frequent
references to the old quarrel between Dwarves and Elves, one that begins
pretty much with the savage slaughter of Thingol "as he stood," by the
Naugrim.
Jedediah
Richard Wang
Jed Wyrick <wyr...@husc8.harvard.edu> wrote:
>They certainly are. The Jews were the West's internal "Other." For what
>other reason would there be so much effort spent proclaiming their guilt
>in the death of Christ?
Hmmm. Closer to Untouchables than to Others, I think. Muslims make a
far more persuasive (and powerful) Other--if you mean Other as in a
culture against which you measure your own. Of course, if you mean
Other in the modern feminist sense of an integral part of society which
is nevertheless discriminated against and oppressed, your comparison is
valid.
>You fail to take note of the way in which the Dwarves are primarily known
>for their economic pursuits--including their monopoly on precious metals
>like mithril. By the way, while there's no precise parallel to the "Jewish
>killing of Christ" with regard to the Dwarves, there are frequent
>references to the old quarrel between Dwarves and Elves, one that begins
>pretty much with the savage slaughter of Thingol "as he stood," by the
>Naugrim.
Also for waking the evil in Moria. When Gimli said that the Dwarves were
not responsible for the evil (FotR, near the end), Legolas responded, "I
said not so--yet the evil came." Is it just me, or does it sound like
Gimli is being a bit defensive here, and that Legolas is fairly unique in
not blaming the Dwarves for the Balrog?
Petteri Sulonen
>You fail to take note of the way in which the Dwarves are primarily known
>for their economic pursuits--including their monopoly on precious metals
>like mithril.
I still disagree. The Dwarves' "economic pursuits" are a sideline. Their
primary attributes are those of craftsmen: Dwarven armor, architecture
(subterranean), and artifacts are mentioned and discussed frequently.
Dwarves as bankers and traders are not mentioned. All of their contacts
with other races deal with Dwarves as craftsmen (helping Thingol with
Menegroth, Celebrimbor with Eregion, making the Nauglamir...).
Their wealth is merely a by-product of their skill as craftsmen -- and
their love for gold is not love for the substance, but for what can be
made out of it. This is a fundamental difference between the way the
Jews are seen and the way the Dwarves are seen.
>By the way, while there's no precise parallel to the "Jewish
>killing of Christ" with regard to the Dwarves, there are frequent
>references to the old quarrel between Dwarves and Elves, one that begins
>pretty much with the savage slaughter of Thingol "as he stood," by the
>Naugrim.
A 'quarrel' (where injustice is admitted to have happened on both sides)
and the burden of guilt laid on the Jews are two entirely different things.
So if there's no parallel on the two defining planes of 'guilt' and
'money-grabbing' (as I just showed), where does that leave your parallel?
I believe you are merely reading your knowledge and enthusiasm of Jewish
thought, culture and image into tLotR. A 'negotiated reading', in other
words.
-- Petteri
Jed Wyrick
>I still disagree. The Dwarves' "economic pursuits" are a sideline. Their
>primary attributes are those of craftsmen: Dwarven armor, architecture
>(subterranean), and artifacts are mentioned and discussed frequently.
>Dwarves as bankers and traders are not mentioned.
That is simply not true. In the Silmarillion the Dwarves establish trade
routes into Beleriand--they're not simply traveling thousands of leagues
to beautify the world. Dwarves in Eraidor are known as the principle
travelers and traders in the area. Yes, obviously, in a pre-industrial
society "banking" per se is not going to be a primary feature of anyone's
economic pursuits--yet import/export activity, dealing in rare goods (cf.
the diamond markets in NYC, Israel, S. Africa), production of luxury
items--how can you not evaluate this primarily from an economic
perspective? Even the armour is a commodity--with it you can carry a
tremendous amount of wealth (mithril or even lesser metals) on your
back. Dwarvish settlements are all about production (mining--even coal
in the Blue Mountains, manufacturing, contracting in the development of
fortifications). Besides, and this is basic Marxist economics, anytime
you have gold or precious metals you have to evaluate them economically
even (and especially) when they present themselves as aesthetic quantities.
Finally, the Seven rings are like capital--they "breed" gold. If this
isn't a kind of speculation (excuse the pun) about usury, I don't know what is.
All of their contacts
>with other races deal with Dwarves as craftsmen (helping Thingol with
>Menegroth, Celebrimbor with Eregion, making the Nauglamir...).
>
>Their wealth is merely a by-product of their skill as craftsmen -- and
>their love for gold is not love for the substance, but for what can be
>made out of it. This is a fundamental difference between the way the
>Jews are seen and the way the Dwarves are seen.
What about the "Seven Hoards" that were founded on each of the Seven
rings? Hoarding is love of gold for gold's sake. But mind you, this is
not a love of gold because gold is beautiful, but because gold is a
fetishized commodity.
>
>>By the way, while there's no precise parallel to the "Jewish
>>killing of Christ" with regard to the Dwarves, there are frequent
>>references to the old quarrel between Dwarves and Elves, one that begins
>>pretty much with the savage slaughter of Thingol "as he stood," by the
>>Naugrim.
>
>A 'quarrel' (where injustice is admitted to have happened on both sides)
>and the burden of guilt laid on the Jews are two entirely different things.
But that's just the point. In the Simarillion, the Jews I mean Dwarves
are presented as being totally at fault, of having slayed the oldest
of the Children of Iluvator (Thingol) out of lust for gold. They
view the Nauglamir with its Silmaril as *recompense* for the wages they
should have earned while imprisoned at Doriath, and as recompense for the death
of their finest craftsmen (again there is the sense that their *capital*
has been destroyed, not merely the craftsmen themselves, but all that
they might have produced). Of course the Dwarves view this issue
differently than do the Elves, but you don't really get a hint of that until
Balin at the Council and Gimli at Lorien--and Balin at least is hardly presented
as the most honoured and respected figure at Elrond's. (Elrond
in the Hobbit is described as "not too fond of" the doings of Dwarves,
even if he does tolerate them, unlike Celeborn and Thranduil).
As for Moria, the Elves here also present the Dwarves as being
responsible for the awakening of the Balrog--of being "guilty"
in fact. The so-called "quarrel" seems then to consist of whether the
Dwarves were guilty or not--hardly a quarrel in the normal sense: The
Elves assert the Dwarves are guilty, while the Dwarves can only refute it
(Gimli never says it was the Elves fault, for example.) Hmmm...sound
familiar?
This also gets replayed at Mirkwood. The Dwarves made
Thranduil's underground dwellings (Gimli pointedly says so) and I
remember that there was indeed a "quarrel" as to the payment for this
enterprise. Later, the Dwarves were accused by both Elves and
Men of having been responsible for Smaug's arrival at Erebor; and
Thranduil is given by Bilbo the Arkenstone in recompense for what his
people (and the Men, I think) suffered *due to the Dwarves*. The Dwarves
are "guilty," for otherwise they would not have to pay. And notice, that
Gandalf finds it to be a "dark moment" for all involved.
>So if there's no parallel on the two defining planes of 'guilt' and
>'money-grabbing' (as I just showed), where does that leave your parallel?
>I believe you are merely reading your knowledge and enthusiasm of Jewish
>thought, culture and image into tLotR. A 'negotiated reading', in other
>words.
>
>-- Petteri
I respect your opinion that I am making a negotiated reading here. On
the other hand, I would question the biases of an alternative reading
that would not question these issues. Even if you do not agree with the
Dwarf/Jew parallel, do you at least see the way that this "quarrel" gets
a lopsided presentation, with the Dwarves tending to be villified unfairly?
Jedediah
Szymon Sokol
: The Shire was supposed to be at the same latitude as the English midlands,
: say Oxford; Gondor must have been at a latitude comparable with that of,
: at a guess, northern Italy. Even people brought up in England usually think
: of England as a cold country. If Numenor also had an Italian climate (I can't
: remember any evidence on the point) I can well imagine that its people
: might have preferred to settle in Gondor rather than Arnor.
We could calculate the exact latitudes in ME from a mention in UT that
somewhere (Gladden Fields?) the days lasted 8 hours in mid-winter. This should
be enogh for an astronomer (volunteers?) to give you the latitude of this
place, and then we can use the scale on the LotR map to find out latitudes of
other places.
--
Szymon Sokol -- Network Manager
U U M M M M University of Mining and Metallurgy, Computer Center
U U MM MM MM MM ave. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Krakow, POLAND
U U M M M M M M M M TEL. +48 12 338100 EXT. 2885 FAX +48 12 338907
UUUUU M M M M M M finger szy...@galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl for PGP key
WWW page: http://www.uci.agh.edu.pl/~szymon
Szymon Sokol
: You fail to take note of the way in which the Dwarves are primarily known
: for their economic pursuits--including their monopoly on precious metals
: like mithril. By the way, while there's no precise parallel to the "Jewish
: killing of Christ" with regard to the Dwarves, there are frequent
: references to the old quarrel between Dwarves and Elves, one that begins
: pretty much with the savage slaughter of Thingol "as he stood," by the
: Naugrim.
Keep in mind though that the crime has been commited by the Dwarves of Nogrod
and their neighbours at Belegost "were dismayed an terrified" by that.
Khazad-Dum, as well as Erebor were mainly populated by the emigrants from
Belegost, while most of the Nogrod's host were killed when passing through
Ossiriand on their way back from Doriath. Durin's folk had no part in the sack
of Doriath, and indeed there was great friendship between them and Noldor
(esp. between the Moria-folk and Noldor of Eregion). Seems that the main
reason for which Thorin's company was imprisoned by Thranduil was Thorin's
own arrogance to the king ("but this Dwarf always had stiff neck" or something
like this is said in "Hobbit").
Travers Naran
>I respect your opinion that I am making a negotiated reading here. On
>the other hand, I would question the biases of an alternative reading
>that would not question these issues. Even if you do not agree with the
>Dwarf/Jew parallel, do you at least see the way that this "quarrel" gets
>a lopsided presentation, with the Dwarves tending to be villified unfairly?
This is true. But I was under the impression that this theme runs throughout
Nordic mythology. Dwarves are usually misunderstood and unfairly mistrusted.
I don't believe the Dwarves are consciously or unconsciously meant to represent
Jews. The parallel exists though, but I don't believe it was deliberate.
--
Glenn Saunders
: wyr...@husc4.harvard.edu (Jed Wyrick) writes:
: --
This forms the basis of the majority of "Wagner was a Jew-hater"
argument. With the ring cycle...
I don't think jews look like dwarves. They aren't pygmies for crying out
loud! So what if many have big noses, big deal. They don't spend their
times in the center of a mountain. Jeez.
Petteri Sulonen
Doesn anybody have in-depth knowledge of the development of
the Nordic dwarf-type? I understand it existed way before the
creators (the Vikings and their fathers) had even met any Jews,,
let alone converted to Christianity or formed negative stereo-
types of them.
If this is the case, the majority of Tolkien's Dwarves' 'anti-
semitic' characteristics, being derived from corresponding
characteristics of Nordic dwarfs, are coincidence.
How about the 'classic anti-semitic type' of the Nibelungen in
the Ring trilogy? Would they too be in fact an older type (maybe
used by the author to denote Jews)?
-- Petteri
Jed Wyrick
>Travers Naran (na...@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>: wyr...@husc4.harvard.edu (Jed Wyrick) writes:
>
>: >I respect your opinion that I am making a negotiated reading here. On
>: >the other hand, I would question the biases of an alternative reading
>: >that would not question these issues. Even if you do not agree with the
>: >Dwarf/Jew parallel, do you at least see the way that this "quarrel" gets
>: >a lopsided presentation, with the Dwarves tending to be villified unfairly?
>
>: This is true. But I was under the impression that this theme runs throughout
>: Nordic mythology. Dwarves are usually misunderstood and unfairly mistrusted.
>: I don't believe the Dwarves are consciously or unconsciously meant to represent
>: Jews. The parallel exists though, but I don't believe it was deliberate.
>
>
>argument. With the ring cycle...
Not just this--why don't you look at an essay by Wagner called "Jews in
Music" for a unmediated view of his opinions on this subject. This is
not just an "argument," it is something that Wagner himself acknowledged
as his own opinion.
>I don't think jews look like dwarves. They aren't pygmies for crying out
>loud! So what if many have big noses, big deal. They don't spend their
>times in the center of a mountain. Jeez.
>
Also, take a look at some of visual representations of Jews in the
western tradition...the point is not that you don't find any similarity,
it's that others have.
Jed Wyrick
I think you are right--there was this legend floating around about the
Dwarf, a somewhat alien race with a malevolent lust for power and gold,
which had nothing whatever to do with Jews. The point with Wagner is
that he was using the Sigfried legend as the ideal for the German people
and German tragedy; as such, these legends become overlayed with a
distinctly 19th century anti-Semitic world view. While I feel that
Tolkien did not partake of this world view, my instinct is that Wagner
has forever soiled this type. There's no possibility after Wagner of
returning to the pure Gothic legend without unintentionally invoking his
reactionary agenda.
Jedediah
Glenn Saunders
:
: Also, take a look at some of visual representations of Jews in the
: it's that others have.
I think part of it is an insecurity many Jews have about their
appearance. If they see anything looking like a dwarf or a troll there
is this knee-jerk response:
They are making fun of us!!!
I won't many any claims about Wagner, that is off-topic. But as for
Tolkien, his views on Dwarves were that they were just as noble as any
other race. Sure, they are materialistic, but every race needs their
defining characteristics else they might as well be humans. Tolkien does
not seem to color Dwarves in such a manner as to damn them as a sub-class
of people. If he wanted to do that then Gimli would not have been
involved in the war of the ring.
Christopher
: which had nothing whatever to do with Jews. The point with Wagner is
: and German tragedy; as such, these legends become overlayed with a
: distinctly 19th century anti-Semitic world view. While I feel that
: Tolkien did not partake of this world view, my instinct is that Wagner
just wanted to make it exremely clear that anit-semitism is NOT a
nineteenth century phenomenon. Haven't you ever heard of the
inquisition? The Jews have been persecuted for a long time, and the
Wagnerien anti-semitism is very real, and is not a perceptual outgrowth
of the nineteenth century.