Helm Hammerhand and Racial Superiority
Öjevind Lång
part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in marriage; he killed Freca
for it. It is made quite clear that Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's
son Wulf as a son-in-law was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But
what else could one expext from Helm, the Hermann G�ring of Rohan? The very
looks were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the racist
attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunlednings are of course
recorded in LotR.
Actually, Tolkien gave the game away when he endowed the Rohirrim with
their name. "Rohir" is clearly a corruption of the German "ein Roher" = "a
rough fellow, a ruffian." Not for nothing was Wormstongue, the Joseph
Goebbels of Middle-earth, also ein Roher.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
锟絡evind L锟絥g <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
> Helm Hammerhand, king of Rohan, was offended when a man named
> Freca, who was part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in
> marriage; he killed Freca for it. It is made quite clear that
> Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's son Wulf as a son-in-law
> was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But what else could
> were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the
> racist attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunlednings are
> of course recorded in LotR.
Shippey compares Helm to Grendel:
Helm in fact is less like Beowulf at this point than he is
like Grendel: it is believed of both of them that weapons
cannot bite on them, and neither uses weapons himself,
preferring to kill people with his bare hands (though this
last is true of Beowulf too, and it is only alleged of Helm
that he is a cannibal like Grendel, not proven). Just the
same, the grim and ruthless streak of *ancient Northern
Heroism* is much clearer in Helm Hammerhand than in any
central character of _The Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien liked
it, I would suggest, as a literary taste, but he could not
tolerate it. He presents Helm as a 'wraith,' but allows the
_simbelmyn锟絖 to grow on his grave.
Tom Shippey, _Roots and Branches_, 'Heroes and Heroism: Tolkien's
Problems, Tolkien's Solutions' p. 279.
Actually, wasn't G锟絩ing, like Himmler, among those Nazi leaders who
saw themselves as continuing a tradition laid down by the heroes of
old? One of those about whom Tolkien would say they were '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.' (_Letters_ #45 to
Michael Tolkien, June 1941).
Unless I'm mistaken about G锟絩ing, both Helm and G锟絩ing found
inspiration in the same 'noble northern spirit' albeit there would,
of course, be differences in their perception of what exactly this
'noble northern spirit' is -- 'which I have ever loved, and tried to
present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally, was it nobler than
in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.'
> Actually, Tolkien gave the game away when he endowed the
> Rohirrim with their name. "Rohir" is clearly a corruption of
> the German "ein Roher" = "a rough fellow, a ruffian."
LOL!
> Not for nothing was Wormstongue, the Joseph Goebbels of Middle-
> earth, also ein Roher.
I don't that comparison holds up -- Wormtongue adressed only one
person with his 'propaganda' (which, IMO, doesn't really deserve that
name however subversive it may have been to Th锟給den), while Goebbels
was a demagogue whose propaganda addressed a people.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the
world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> Helm Hammerhand, king of Rohan, was offended when a man named Freca, who was
> part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in marriage; he killed Freca
> for it. It is made quite clear that Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's
> son Wulf as a son-in-law was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But
> looks were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the racist
> attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunlednings are of course
> recorded in LotR.
> Actually, Tolkien gave the game away when he endowed the Rohirrim with
> their name. "Rohir" is clearly a corruption of the German "ein Roher" = "a
> rough fellow, a ruffian." Not for nothing was Wormstongue, the Joseph
> Goebbels of Middle-earth, also ein Roher.
This is an outrageous and racist claim. Tolkien would never ascribe
such despicable traits to his beloved Rohirrim. He deeply believed -
and so do I - that all races are equal, and that the world would be a
better place if everybody, no matter what colour his hair or skin was,
just came together and sat around a fire and read Tolkien's books and
smoked some weed and held hands and sung Kumbaya.
It is my firm belief that mankind should not be divided in peoples or
races, but only in Faithful (those who read Tolkien) and Heretics. It
is true that the Rohirrim hated the Dunlendings, but it had nothing to
do with race. The Dunlendings were simply heretics who never read
Tolkien, and thus they deserved being despised.
The truth is, the name "Dunlending" comes from "don't lend", which
means it is useless to lend Tolkien books to them. They wouldn't read
them and probably return them soiled or not at all. In return, the
Dunlendings called the Rohirrim "Forgoil", which comes from "forge
all", because they believed the Rohirrim had made up Tolkien. Idiots.
Noel
Weland
> In message <news:7r6e11...@mid.individual.net>
> �jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>> Freca, who was part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in
>> marriage; he killed Freca for it. It is made quite clear that
>> Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's son Wulf as a son-in-law
>> was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But what else could
>> were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the
>> racist attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunlednings are
>> of course recorded in LotR.
But it isn't based on race or solely on race. It is also based on
Freca's disrespect, dishonoring the king in his own council, and attempt
to gain control of the throne through marriage--rather like a Godwin
that--and an unwarranted marriage rather than through the merger of
great houses that sustained the realm.
Interestingly I would probably compare
>
> Shippey compares Helm to Grendel:
> Helm in fact is less like Beowulf at this point than he is
> like Grendel: it is believed of both of them that weapons
> cannot bite on them, and neither uses weapons himself,
> preferring to kill people with his bare hands (though this
> last is true of Beowulf too, and it is only alleged of Helm
> that he is a cannibal like Grendel, not proven). Just the
> same, the grim and ruthless streak of *ancient Northern
> Heroism* is much clearer in Helm Hammerhand than in any
> central character of _The Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien liked
> it, I would suggest, as a literary taste, but he could not
> tolerate it. He presents Helm as a 'wraith,' but allows the
> _simbelmyn�_ to grow on his grave.
> Tom Shippey, _Roots and Branches_, 'Heroes and Heroism: Tolkien's
> Problems, Tolkien's Solutions' p. 279.
Hmm, seems to me that there are others in the Norse tradition who are
similarly described, but at the moment I'm not dredging any up. Still
it wouldn't be unusual for Tolkien to "convert" something negative in
medieval literature into a positive.
Osric
> Interestingly I would probably compare
> > Shippey compares Helm to Grendel:
> > Helm in fact is less like Beowulf at this point than he is
> > like Grendel: it is believed of both of them that weapons
> > cannot bite on them, and neither uses weapons himself,
> > preferring to kill people with his bare hands (though this
> > last is true of Beowulf too, and it is only alleged of Helm
> > that he is a cannibal like Grendel, not proven). Just the
> > same, the grim and ruthless streak of *ancient Northern
> > Heroism* is much clearer in Helm Hammerhand than in any
> > central character of _The Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien liked
> > it, I would suggest, as a literary taste, but he could not
> > tolerate it. He presents Helm as a 'wraith,' but allows the
> > Tom Shippey, _Roots and Branches_, 'Heroes and Heroism: Tolkien's
> > Problems, Tolkien's Solutions' p. 279.
>
> Hmm, seems to me that there are others in the Norse tradition who are
> similarly described, but at the moment I'm not dredging any up. Still
> it wouldn't be unusual for Tolkien to "convert" something negative in
> medieval literature into a positive.
It's an observation I've made in the past that the various Old Norse
tales of encounters with the undead -- draugar, haugbuar, aptrgangar
-- describe them in terms comparable to Grendel. It also seemed
common for the hero/barrow-thief's weapn first to be useless, and then
to be lost. An amount of wrestling ensures, and it is on seizing up a
sword from the barrow-hoard that the decisive blow is struck.
I don't know how much to make of this. I wrote an article (for the
online mag in my sig) on JRRT's barrow-wight(s) and decided we
couldn't draw any strong conclusions on the nature of barrow-wights.
It is at least likely that such dramatic elements as losing/breaking
your weapon in a fight, and not only facing a hideous undead but even
having to grapple with it close up, make a better tale and better
portray the hero as a paragon of Norse virtues.
Frodo and 'his' barrow-wight share many of these elements, which
Tolkien must have done at least knowingly. Readers will differ on
whether he is just unlike a Norse hero or whether Tolkien was
deliberately depicting him as an accidental hero or antihero.
Whether related or not, Beowulf and Grendel have some of these
elements in common too. I would not so much distinguish between the
two as point to their similarities, and the way in which Beowulf's
victory demonstrated him besting Grendel even with Grendel's 'choice
of weapons'. Perhaps Helm shares the characteristics of the hero/
paragon without any more specific connection being necessary.
Cheers,
--Os.
--
|\/ Osric, aka Neville.Percy <cough, cough> Gmail.com
|\/ "The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better
| fantasy will it make." JRR Tolkien – The Monsters and the Critics
http://www.othermindsmagazine.com – an international journal for
academic and gaming interests in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth
Öjevind Lång
news:himg3u$o7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> In message <news:7r6e11...@mid.individual.net> �jevind L�ng
>> <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>>> Helm Hammerhand, king of Rohan, was offended when a man named
>>> Freca, who was part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in
>>> marriage; he killed Freca for it. It is made quite clear that
>>> Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's son Wulf as a son-in-law
>>> was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But what else could
>>> one expext from Helm, the Hermann G�ring of Rohan? The very looks
>>> were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the
>>> racist attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunledings are
>>> of course recorded in LotR.
>
> But it isn't based on race or solely on race. It is also based on Freca's
> disrespect, dishonoring the king in his own council, and attempt to gain
> control of the throne through marriage--rather like a Godwin that--and an
> unwarranted marriage rather than through the merger of great houses that
> sustained the realm.
That's true; one could even say that Helm was quite commendably forbearing
in the face of Freca's presumption until Freca went too far in his insulting
behaviuor. Still, there *is* a racist component in the Rohirric attitude to
the Dunlendings. Before Helm kills Freca, he calls him "Dunlending" in a way
that makes it clear that Freca's "race" is part of his inferiority,
presumtion in asking for the hand of the king's daughter in marriage with
his son . Consider also the fact that apparently, the Rohirrim hunted the
Woses for sport until �omer (or Elessar?) put an end to it following their
assistance in the War of the Ring.
Tolkien was somewhat obsessed with bloodlines and racial purity, though
with another part of his brain he rejected such prejudice as stupid and
wrong. Just consider his narrative of the Kin-strfie, which was triggered by
racist prejudice, and whose leader was the villainous Castamir the Usurper.
I'd say there is a bit of amibavlence to his attitude to the Rohirrim too.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet
news:ae50ee13-6e19-470b...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> It is my firm belief that mankind should not be divided in peoples or
> races, but only in Faithful (those who read Tolkien) and Heretics. It
> is true that the Rohirrim hated the Dunlendings, but it had nothing to
> do with race. The Dunlendings were simply heretics who never read
> Tolkien, and thus they deserved being despised.
[GASP] How ifnamous! If this is trtue, I retract everything I said.
>
> The truth is, the name "Dunlending" comes from "don't lend", which
> means it is useless to lend Tolkien books to them. They wouldn't read
> them and probably return them soiled or not at all. In return, the
> Dunlendings called the Rohirrim "Forgoil", which comes from "forge
> all", because they believed the Rohirrim had made up Tolkien. Idiots.
OTOH, this is proof that they read Shakespeare and followd Polonius' advice
in Hamlet": "Neither a lender nor a borrower be."
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9CFFD017...@130.133.4.11...
[snip]
> Shippey compares Helm to Grendel:
> Helm in fact is less like Beowulf at this point than he is
> like Grendel: it is believed of both of them that weapons
> cannot bite on them, and neither uses weapons himself,
> preferring to kill people with his bare hands (though this
> last is true of Beowulf too, and it is only alleged of Helm
> that he is a cannibal like Grendel, not proven). Just the
> same, the grim and ruthless streak of *ancient Northern
> Heroism* is much clearer in Helm Hammerhand than in any
> central character of _The Lord of the Rings_. Tolkien liked
> it, I would suggest, as a literary taste, but he could not
> tolerate it. He presents Helm as a 'wraith,' but allows the
> _simbelmyn�_ to grow on his grave.
> Tom Shippey, _Roots and Branches_, 'Heroes and Heroism: Tolkien's
> Problems, Tolkien's Solutions' p. 279.
I didn't know that. It's very interesting. I haven't read that book by
Shippey, though I read "The Road to Middle-earth" and "Tolkien: Author of
the Century." I'll make amends and read it now; clearly there is good meat
in it.
> Actually, wasn't G�ring, like Himmler, among those Nazi leaders who
> saw themselves as continuing a tradition laid down by the heroes of
> old? One of those about whom Tolkien would say they were '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.' (_Letters_ #45 to
> Michael Tolkien, June 1941).
Nazism was a strange blend of worshipping Vikings and other old heroic
Germanic peoples and an idealized verion of the Middle Ages, andof
kowtowing before the machine culture, which Tolkien detested. It's no wonder
Tolkien hated them as corrupers of everything held dear. Some prominent
Nazis were pseudo-pagans, and yet the belt buckles of their soldiers had the
motto "GOTT MIT UNS" ("God with us").
> Unless I'm mistaken about G�ring, both Helm and G�ring found
> inspiration in the same 'noble northern spirit' albeit there would,
> of course, be differences in their perception of what exactly this
> 'noble northern spirit' is -- 'which I have ever loved, and tried to
> present in its true light. Nowhere, incidentally, was it nobler than
> in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.'
That is, I believe, Tolkien idealizing medieval England, but of course, much
is always in the eye of the beholder.
>> Actually, Tolkien gave the game away when he endowed the
>> Rohirrim with their name. "Rohir" is clearly a corruption of
>> the German "ein Roher" = "a rough fellow, a ruffian."
>
> LOL!
I will admit that perhaps my etymology is just a little iffy.
�jevind
Paul S. Person
<ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:himg3u$o7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>> In message <news:7r6e11...@mid.individual.net> �jevind L�ng
>>> <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
>>>> Helm Hammerhand, king of Rohan, was offended when a man named
>>>> Freca, who was part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in
>>>> marriage; he killed Freca for it. It is made quite clear that
>>>> Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's son Wulf as a son-in-law
>>>> was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But what else could
>>>> one expext from Helm, the Hermann G�ring of Rohan? The very looks
>>>> were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the
>>>> racist attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunledings are
>>>> of course recorded in LotR.
>>
>> But it isn't based on race or solely on race. It is also based on Freca's
>> disrespect, dishonoring the king in his own council, and attempt to gain
>> control of the throne through marriage--rather like a Godwin that--and an
>> unwarranted marriage rather than through the merger of great houses that
>> sustained the realm.
>
>That's true; one could even say that Helm was quite commendably forbearing
>in the face of Freca's presumption until Freca went too far in his insulting
>behaviuor. Still, there *is* a racist component in the Rohirric attitude to
>the Dunlendings. Before Helm kills Freca, he calls him "Dunlending" in a way
>that makes it clear that Freca's "race" is part of his inferiority,
>presumtion in asking for the hand of the king's daughter in marriage with
>his son . Consider also the fact that apparently, the Rohirrim hunted the
>Woses for sport until �omer (or Elessar?) put an end to it following their
>assistance in the War of the Ring.
> Tolkien was somewhat obsessed with bloodlines and racial purity, though
>with another part of his brain he rejected such prejudice as stupid and
>wrong. Just consider his narrative of the Kin-strfie, which was triggered by
>racist prejudice, and whose leader was the villainous Castamir the Usurper.
>I'd say there is a bit of amibavlence to his attitude to the Rohirrim too.
The earlier versions of /LOTR/, IIRC, had a group of Dunlendings
mustering with the Rohirrim to march to the defense of Gondor. This
might suggest that, at one point, the enmity between Dunlendings and
Rohirrim was not as strong at first as it later became.
Indeed, all things considered, and in the light of modern
sensibilities, the Rohirrim's treatment of the Dunlendings does not do
them credit. When /LOTR/ was written, of course, it was much more
common in what was called "Western culture" to regard this sort of
thing as entirely natural.
--
Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses.
Pseudonymus al-Faqha'ter III
> "Noel Q. von Schneiffel" <noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> skrev i
> meddelandetnews:ae50ee13-6e19-470b...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Tolkien said that Shakespeare is rubbish. See especially Letter 104,
written when He was four:
"What a farrago of nonsense My nanny just read Me. It was by
Shakespeare, and it was about witches. The witches were so lame.
Shakespeare couldn't scare a red-nosed hartebeest. Besides, he doesn't
use the dative case. Yuck."
Raven
meddelelsen
news:e51a630e-d27f-4bdb...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Besides, [Shakespeare] doesn't use the dative case. Yuck."
Yes, this is a problem in modern Norwegian too. Old Norse had it, but
now we have to use the same two workarounds that modern English does: word
order, which may be ambiguous, and prepositions such as "to". "He gives me
food" uses word order to indicate that the word "me" is in the Dative case,
though like in form now to the Accusative. Other sentences, quite related
in form, such as "This seems me well", jars my borrowed English ear, though,
and the preposition must be used instead - "This seems well to me".
Hrafn.
Bill O'Meally
> I don't know how much to make of this. I wrote an article (for the
> couldn't draw any strong conclusions on the nature of barrow-wights.
Would you care to share some of the points in your article here? I
would love to hear them.
Personally, I find it tempting to explain the barrow-wights as bodies
of the dead, already buried in the Barrow Downs, but possesed by the
unhoused /fear/ of elves who have died or were killed, but remained in
ME having refused the summons of Mandos.
In 'Laws and Customs' (pp 222-224), the 'Unbodied', or the 'Houseless'
/fear/ of elves are described as being evil, or at least flawed, by
nature. Many had already turned to darkness before death, but even
those who hadn't, in the very act of refusing the summons of Mandos,
were therefore tainted. The practice of attempting to master these
spirits by Sauron and his servants is what is described as necromancy.
Based on this, the WK, being Sauron's most powerful servant, was also
more than likely a necromancer. We know that the wights were evil
spirits sent by the Witch King out of Angmar to dwell in the Barrow
Downs. (UT p 348)
"Some say the Houseless desire bodies, though they are not willing to
seek them lawfully by submission to the judgement of Mandos. The
wicked among them will take bodies, if they can, unlawfully...For one
of the hungry Houseless, if it is admitted to the friendship of the
Living, may sek to eject the /fea/ from its body; and in the contest
for mastery the body may be gravely injured, even if not wrested from
its rightful habitant. Or the Houseless may plead for shelter, and if
it is admitted, then it will seek to enslave its host and seek to use
both his will and his body for its own purposes. It is said that
Sauron did these things, and taught his followers how to achieve
them". (L&C p 224)
The Houseless are also described as haunting inanimate or non-living
objects, "haunting trees or springs or hidden places they once knew".
(ibid p 223) Inhabiting, or being forced to inhabit, the corpses of
those buried on the barrows does not seem too much of a leap.
Thoughts?
[*] http://www.othermindsmagazine.com
> � an international journal for
> academic and gaming interests in JRR Tolkien's Middle-earth
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Christopher Henrich
"Raven" <jon.lennart.be...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
Your borrowed English ear is very acute. *"This seems me well" is
definitely erroneous. IANAL so I do not know how to formulate a rule
which it violates. Part of the problem, I think, is that "well" is an
adverb modifying "seems", not a direct object. In "this seems folly",
"folly" is a direct object; and ?"This seems me folly" is on the border
of acceptability.
But only on the border. It really sounds like an entry in the
Tolkien-derivative Parody division of a Bad Writing contest.
The trouble is that "seems" really doesn't want to take a direct object.
It is more comfortable with constructions like "This seems like fooling
around." But notice what happens if you try to intrude an indirect
object: *"This seems me like fooling around." The meaningful part of
that wretched sentence is *"me like fooling around."
>
> Hrafn.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Weland
> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:himg3u$o7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>>> Helm Hammerhand, king of Rohan, was offended when a man named
>>>> Freca, who was part Dunlending, asked for his daughter's hand in
>>>> marriage; he killed Freca for it. It is made quite clear that
>>>> Helm's unwillingness to consider Freca's son Wulf as a son-in-law
>>>> was primarly motivated by racial arrogance. But what else could
>>>> were the same: burly, fat, blond, bulging blue eyes. And the
>>>> racist attitude and genocidal policies towards the Dunledings are
>>>> of course recorded in LotR.
>>
>> But it isn't based on race or solely on race. It is also based on
>> Freca's disrespect, dishonoring the king in his own council, and
>> attempt to gain control of the throne through marriage--rather like a
>> Godwin that--and an unwarranted marriage rather than through the
>> merger of great houses that sustained the realm.
>
> That's true; one could even say that Helm was quite commendably
> forbearing in the face of Freca's presumption until Freca went too far
> in his insulting behaviuor. Still, there *is* a racist component in the
> Rohirric attitude to the Dunlendings.
I don't disagree. There is a certain racism there, a concern in Gondor,
Rohan, and even Elrond and Galadriel about the "high born" keeping the
royal blood pure. At the same time, much of that would have been
mitigated had Freca been less of an ass and more of a supporter of the
king. He was after all invited to council consistently, and only came
when it suited him---thus giving disrespect to his king, whose relative
he claimed to be.
Troels Forchhammer
<news:chenrich-6753BB...@feeder.eternal-september.org>
Christopher Henrich <chenr...@monmouth.com> spake these staves:
>
> In article <4b4fa6bf$0$56796$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> "Raven" <jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>>
>> Other sentences, quite related in form, such as "This seems me
>> well", jars my borrowed English ear, though, and the preposition
>> must be used instead - "This seems well to me".
>
> Your borrowed English ear is very acute. *"This seems me well" is
> definitely erroneous.
Erroneous or archaic? In Danish the equivalent, 'Dette synes mig
godt' would definitely be archaic, but not, I think, erroneous even
according to modern syntax rules, and while I wouldn't use the
English phrase (it certainly sounds wrong for modern English), I
don't think it would make me pause to see it in an archaic context.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> That's true; one could even say that Helm was quite commendably
>> forbearing in the face of Freca's presumption until Freca went too far in
>> his insulting behaviuor. Still, there *is* a racist component in the
>> Rohirric attitude to the Dunlendings.
>
> I don't disagree. There is a certain racism there, a concern in Gondor,
> Rohan, and even Elrond and Galadriel about the "high born" keeping the
> royal blood pure. At the same time, much of that would have been
> mitigated had Freca been less of an ass and more of a supporter of the
> king. He was after all invited to council consistently, and only came
> when it suited him---thus giving disrespect to his king, whose relative he
> claimed to be.
Oh, I agree. I am certainly not claiming that Freca was a good guy.
�jevind
John W Kennedy
> In message
> <news:chenrich-6753BB...@feeder.eternal-september.org>
> Christopher Henrich<chenr...@monmouth.com> spake these staves:
>>
>> In article<4b4fa6bf$0$56796$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
>> "Raven"<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>>>
>>> Other sentences, quite related in form, such as "This seems me
>>> well", jars my borrowed English ear, though, and the preposition
>>> must be used instead - "This seems well to me".
>>
>> Your borrowed English ear is very acute. *"This seems me well" is
>> definitely erroneous.
>
> Erroneous or archaic?
I cannot recall seeing anything like it since the English dative
disappeared in the middle ages, but something of the sort survives,
barely, in the archaic "methinks".
--
John W. Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"
Count Menelvagor
> On 1/15/10 4:02 AM, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> > In message
> > <news:chenrich-6753BB...@feeder.eternal-september.org>
> > Christopher Henrich<chenr...@monmouth.com> spake these staves:
>
> >> In article<4b4fa6bf$0$56796$edfad...@dtext02.news.tele.dk>,
> >> "Raven"<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>
> >>> Other sentences, quite related in form, such as "This seems me
> >>> well", jars my borrowed English ear, though, and the preposition
> >>> must be used instead - "This seems well to me".
>
> >> Your borrowed English ear is very acute. *"This seems me well" is
> >> definitely erroneous.
>
> > Erroneous or archaic?
>
> I cannot recall seeing anything like it since the English dative
> disappeared in the middle ages, but something of the sort survives,
> barely, in the archaic "methinks".
and malory has "the king seemed" for "it seemed to the king." "to
like" was originally a similar locution, iirc: "it likes me not" > "i
don't like" (which sounds banal).
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
> �jevind L�ng wrote:
>>
>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:himg3u$o7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
<snip>
>>> But it isn't based on race or solely on race.
[...]
>>
>> That's true; one could even say that Helm was quite commendably
>> forbearing in the face of Freca's presumption until Freca went
>> too far in his insulting behaviuor. Still, there *is* a racist
>> component in the Rohirric attitude to the Dunlendings.
>
> I don't disagree. There is a certain racism there, a concern in
> Gondor, Rohan, and even Elrond and Galadriel about the "high born"
> keeping the royal blood pure.
My impression is that the norse were fairly racist towards what they
saw as lesser peoples ('skraelingr' was definitely a derogatory
term). Other Germannic tribes may have received some respect, as
would the rulers of the southern empires, but other peoples that they
met were treated with disdain (which is polite code for capturing
them and selling them as thralls).
If that attitude is transferred to the Rohirrim I think it is quite
likely that they would have harboured a racist attitude towards the
Dunlendings (though Tolkien clearly softened it as evidenced by the
treatment of the Dunlendish prisoners after the Battle of the
Hornburg -- no thralls there).
As for the question of the purity of the noble lines, this has always
appeared to me very different from the doctrine of racial purity that
was so popular in the thirties. I'm not sure if I can explain myself
coherently, but it seems to me that in Tolkien you inherit not just
the _right_ to rule, but actually also an _obligation_ to rule (I am
here speaking of the rulers on the 'good' side, not those who desire
to dominate their subjects). At the same time there is a strong
implication that nobility is somehow hereditary -- most obvious in
those Men who has some elvish blood (the line of Elros and the line
of Dol Amroth). We have spoken about magic being related to proximity
to the divine, but it also seems to me that this is true also of this
hereditary nobility that is associated with the right & obligation to
rule.
The Three Kindreds were ruled by the first Elves to see the gods and
to visit the land of the gods. When one of these three went missing,
the next in line to rule that kindred was his brother: the one who
was next in proximity to the gods. With respect to the line of Elros,
this is trivial, descended as they are from Melian, but even the line
of Eorl share this. Eorl won the right to rule his people (regardless
of the status of his father before him) by 'taming' and riding
Felar�f, from which come the Mearas about which 'Men said of them
that B�ma (whom the Eldar call Orom�) must have brought their sire
from West over Sea.' The kings of the Mark derive their proximity to
the divine by riding the Mearas and nobody else are allowed to ride
them!
This also fits well with some of the legends of e.g. norse rulers,
whose right to rule was also justified by divine proximity. Thus it
is said of the royal line of Denmark that they are descended from
Odin (I know it's extremely unlikely that the king in every case has
been the father of the prince, but considering the reputed
promiscuity of our early kings, we probably all have some royal
blood, so it makes no difference in the end <GG>).
It is this proximity to the divine which ennobles rulers (not all of
them -- there're bad apples everywhere) and which is heriditary. This
is part of the reason why the purity of the noble lines is important
-- otherwise they risk that this divine proximity becomes diluted.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> As for the question of the purity of the noble lines, this has always
> appeared to me very different from the doctrine of racial purity that
> was so popular in the thirties. I'm not sure if I can explain myself
> coherently, but it seems to me that in Tolkien you inherit not just
> the _right_ to rule, but actually also an _obligation_ to rule (I am
> here speaking of the rulers on the 'good' side, not those who desire
> to dominate their subjects). At the same time there is a strong
> implication that nobility is somehow hereditary -- most obvious in
> those Men who has some elvish blood (the line of Elros and the line
> of Dol Amroth). We have spoken about magic being related to proximity
> to the divine, but it also seems to me that this is true also of this
> hereditary nobility that is associated with the right & obligation to
> rule.
There are also indications that certain inherited traits, such as the long
lives of DīŋŊnedain, were a sort of gift which could be retracted. Saruman's
gift , his wizard's *mana*, was rather swiftly retraced by the West after
his refusal to repent, whereas NīŋŊmenorean longevity was very gradually
retracted after the Fall of NīŋŊmenor. It is said quite specifically in
Appendix A..
"After the return of Eldacar the blood of the kingly house and other houses
of the DīŋŊnedain became more mingled with that of lesser Men. For many of the
great had been slain in the Kin-strife, while Eldacar showed favour to the
Northmen, by whose help he had regained the crown, and the people of Gondor
were replenished by great numbers that came from Rhovanion.
"This mingling did not at first hasten the waning of the DīŋŊnedain, as had
been feared; but the waning still proceeded, little by little, as it had
before. For no doubt it was due above all to Middle-earth itself, and to the
slow withdrawing of the gifts of the NīŋŊmenoreans after the downfall of the
Land of the Star. Eldacar lived to his two hundred and thirty-fifht year,
and awas king for fidty-eight years, of whoich ten were spent in exile."
The noble lines in general could perhaps be a similar kind of "gift".
[snip]
> This also fits well with some of the legends of e.g. norse rulers,
> whose right to rule was also justified by divine proximity. Thus it
> is said of the royal line of Denmark that they are descended from
> Odin (I know it's extremely unlikely that the king in every case has
> been the father of the prince, but considering the reputed
> promiscuity of our early kings, we probably all have some royal
> blood, so it makes no difference in the end <GG>).
Lucky for the kings of Denmark that one-eyedness is not an inherited trait.
> It is this proximity to the divine which ennobles rulers (not all of
> them -- there're bad apples everywhere) and which is heriditary. This
> is part of the reason why the purity of the noble lines is important
> -- otherwise they risk that this divine proximity becomes diluted.
I believe you are right, though the thinking behind this (not, I hasten to
add, yours but the one you describe) is muddled.
īŋŊjevind
Weland
> In message <news:hip5kr$vn6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>> �jevind L�ng wrote:
>>> "Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:himg3u$o7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> But it isn't based on race or solely on race.
> [...]
>>> That's true; one could even say that Helm was quite commendably
>>> forbearing in the face of Freca's presumption until Freca went
>>> too far in his insulting behaviuor. Still, there *is* a racist
>>> component in the Rohirric attitude to the Dunlendings.
>> I don't disagree. There is a certain racism there, a concern in
>> Gondor, Rohan, and even Elrond and Galadriel about the "high born"
>> keeping the royal blood pure.
>
> My impression is that the norse were fairly racist towards what they
> saw as lesser peoples ('skraelingr' was definitely a derogatory
> term). Other Germannic tribes may have received some respect, as
> would the rulers of the southern empires, but other peoples that they
> met were treated with disdain (which is polite code for capturing
> them and selling them as thralls).
Everyone was. The Greeks coined the term "Barbaroi" and it wasn't meant
to be complimentary. The Romans disdained the non-Roman, even in the
case of the Vandal Stilicho who though married to a Roman princess was
still an outsider and they preferred to have him dead and reviled as an
outsider than to have him in charge of their armies and save their
skins. Ok, oversimplification, but the Roman aristocracy was really
resentful of him for his foreigness and success. The English weren't
always particularly kind to the Welsh or Scots but the "otber", the
outsider is just that: not us, and so denigrated in classical, biblical,
and Gernamic tradition and beyond.
>
> If that attitude is transferred to the Rohirrim I think it is quite
> likely that they would have harboured a racist attitude towards the
> Dunlendings (though Tolkien clearly softened it as evidenced by the
> treatment of the Dunlendish prisoners after the Battle of the
> Hornburg -- no thralls there).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not Dunlendings the descendants of
Sauron worshippers from the Dark Years, and more or less conquered by
the ROhirrim (in spite of the ceding of the territory by Gondor)? If
so, a conquered people, no matter how high in society some had risen,
would always be suspect and outcast.
> As for the question of the purity of the noble lines, this has always
> appeared to me very different from the doctrine of racial purity that
> was so popular in the thirties. I'm not sure if I can explain myself But t
> coherently, but it seems to me that in Tolkien you inherit not just
> the _right_ to rule, but actually also an _obligation_ to rule (I am
> here speaking of the rulers on the 'good' side, not those who desire
> to dominate their subjects).
Yes, a version of the Divine Right of Kings. But the Divine Right in
its best applications meant that the king was chosen to rule and so has
an obligation to rule...an obligation to God and to the ruled.
A
t the same time there is a strong
> implication that nobility is somehow hereditary --
Yes, a product of his environment.
most obvious in
> those Men who has some elvish blood (the line of Elros and the line
> of Dol Amroth). We have spoken about magic being related to proximity
> to the divine, but it also seems to me that this is true also of this
> hereditary nobility that is associated with the right & obligation to
> rule.
Yes, derived among men by proximity to the Elves...but only Elves of
certain houses...those who lived in the BLessed Realm and returned and
the human houses who stood with them. We're not talking about relatives
of Thranduil here.
> The Three Kindreds were ruled by the first Elves to see the gods and
> to visit the land of the gods. When one of these three went missing,
> the next in line to rule that kindred was his brother: the one who
> was next in proximity to the gods. With respect to the line of Elros,
> this is trivial, descended as they are from Melian, but even the line
> of Eorl share this. Eorl won the right to rule his people (regardless
> of the status of his father before him) by 'taming' and riding
> Felar�f, from which come the Mearas about which 'Men said of them
> that B�ma (whom the Eldar call Orom�) must have brought their sire
> from West over Sea.' The kings of the Mark derive their proximity to
> the divine by riding the Mearas and nobody else are allowed to ride
> them!
>
> This also fits well with some of the legends of e.g. norse rulers,
> whose right to rule was also justified by divine proximity. Thus it
> is said of the royal line of Denmark that they are descended from
> Odin (I know it's extremely unlikely that the king in every case has
> been the father of the prince, but considering the reputed
> promiscuity of our early kings, we probably all have some royal
> blood, so it makes no difference in the end <GG>).
>
> It is this proximity to the divine which ennobles rulers (not all of
> them -- there're bad apples everywhere) and which is heriditary. This
> is part of the reason why the purity of the noble lines is important
> -- otherwise they risk that this divine proximity becomes diluted.
>
Yes, all well said.
Weland
One might point out that the construction is based on
the impersonal use of the verbs (it seemed). Many other Indo-European
have this construction for certain verbs that mean "seem" and "please"
(like "like") including Latin and Greek, English Norse....
Jette Goldie
>
> Nazism was a strange blend of worshipping Vikings and other old heroic
> Germanic peoples and an idealized verion of the Middle Ages, andof
> kowtowing before the machine culture, which Tolkien detested. It's no
> wonder Tolkien hated them as corrupers of everything held dear. Some
> prominent Nazis were pseudo-pagans, and yet the belt buckles of their
> soldiers had the motto "GOTT MIT UNS" ("God with us").
>
and as pseudo-pagans, they had a choice of gods to be with them.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Troels Forchhammer
�jevind L�ng <ojevin...@bredband.net> spoke these staves:
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i
> meddelandet news:Xns9CFFD017...@130.133.4.11...
>>
<snip>
>> Tom Shippey, _Roots and Branches_, 'Heroes and Heroism: Tolkien's
>> Problems, Tolkien's Solutions' p. 279.
>
> I didn't know that. It's very interesting. I haven't read that
> book by Shippey, though I read "The Road to Middle-earth" and
> "Tolkien: Author of the Century." I'll make amends and read it
> now; clearly there is good meat in it.
Yes, I think it is quite good. The papers and essays have all been
published elsewhere, but I'd be at a loss to try and get hold of all
of them in any other way. Shippey touches on an even wider range of
subjects in this heterogenous collection than he does the two
homogenous books, going also into matters of philology (including an
essay on Tolkien's academic reputation now). Very interesting.
>> exactly this 'noble northern spirit' is -- 'which I have ever
>> loved, and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere,
>> incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early
>> sanctified and Christianized.'
>
> That is, I believe, Tolkien idealizing medieval England,
Yes, I quite agree. And of course Christianity plays an important
role both in Tolkien's idealization, but also, I think, in his idea
of a particular ennoblement of this 'northen spirit' in England.
> but of course, much is always in the eye of the beholder.
Sometimes blinding it . . . :-)
But, yes -- perspective _is_ important.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
[snip]
>> If that attitude is transferred to the Rohirrim I think it is quite
>> likely that they would have harboured a racist attitude towards the
>> Dunlendings (though Tolkien clearly softened it as evidenced by the
>> treatment of the Dunlendish prisoners after the Battle of the Hornburg --
>> no thralls there).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not Dunlendings the descendants of
> Sauron worshippers from the Dark Years, and more or less conquered by the
> ROhirrim (in spite of the ceding of the territory by Gondor)? If so, a
> conquered people, no matter how high in society some had risen, would
> always be suspect and outcast.
As recall, it is stated that just about everyone in Middle-earth worshipped
Sauron during the period before the N�menoreans overthrew him. There were
probably some dissenters, some tribes that stayed away from Sauron as much
as they could or who lived a long distance off, out of his reach.
Presumably, the Rohirrim were descended from such a people via the �otheod.
There were also the "heretical sects" founded by the Blue Wizards, Alatar
and Pallando, as mentioned by Tolkien in one of his letters. It seems
Tolkien saw some merit in eastern religions such as Confucianism and
Buddhism, and this was his way of saying that they did possess some of the
truth, though in a distorted form.
The Dunlendings and the Men of Bree were of the same stock as the people
of the White Mountains, the ones who broke their oath to Isildur to fight on
his side because they had worshipped Sauron during the Dark Years. The ones
who died out as a punishment from Eru for their infidelity both to him and
to Isildur. (When Isildur said to their king: "Thou shalt be their last
king", he is, IMO, clearly not deciding the future of a whole people but
simply using the foresight possessed by some people of his line.) It is hard
to imagine that the Men of Bree ever worshipped Sauron. So when it comes to
the question of whether the Dunlendings did, it is, I believe, anyone's
guess. Unless someone can cite a statement from Tolkien I have missed or
haven't read. That could easily be the case - as we know, Tolkien often
changed the mind, and especially in his later years, wrote many speculations
that are incompatible with each other.
It seems that after the Rohirrim were given Calenardhon, they enlargded it
westwards by driving away the Dunlendings who lived there. This was
perceived (with justification) as an act of aggression, as oppression, by
the Dunlendings. It is specifically said of them (by Merry, IIRC) that they
"were rather grim, but not particularly evil-looking". That is to say, they
were not evil as such, but they hated the Rohirrim, with some justification,
just the way many Welshmen hated the English who had driven them out of what
is now western England.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
[Racism a millennium and more ago]
> Everyone was.
[...]
> The English weren't always particularly kind to the Welsh or Scots
> but the "otber", the outsider is just that: not us, and so
> denigrated in classical, biblical, and Gernamic tradition and
> beyond.
Precisely. And so the attitude of Helm towards the Dunlendings is
perhaps a more realistic embodiment of the Northern spirit than the
mercy of Th�oden after the Battle of the Hornburg ('Help rebuild what
you helped destroy, and then go home to your families') -- Shippey
opines that this is precisely because this kind of racism was abhorrent
to Tolkien that it was relegated to the appendices.
>> If that attitude is transferred to the Rohirrim I think it is
>> quite likely that they would have harboured a racist attitude
>> towards the Dunlendings (though Tolkien clearly softened it as
>> evidenced by the treatment of the Dunlendish prisoners after the
>> Battle of the Hornburg -- no thralls there).
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not Dunlendings the descendants
> of Sauron worshippers from the Dark Years,
Yes, that's how I recall it also.
> and more or less conquered by the Rohirrim (in spite of the ceding
> of the territory by Gondor)?
I suppose that they must have been conquered at some point by Gondor --
at least I believe that Dunland at one point was counted a part of
Gondor along with Minhiriath. I also seem to remember that there were
several border disputes with Rohan, but I don't recall if Rohan had to
conquer Dunland as such.
> If so, a conquered people, no matter how high in society some had
> risen, would always be suspect and outcast.
I suspect that the mere fact that they were Men of Darkness while the
Rohirrim were Men of Twilight (i.e. not N�men�reans, but nevertheless
descendants of the Edain and not Sauron-worshippers) would be enough to
explain rather severe prejudice against the Dunlendings.
>> As for the question of the purity of the noble lines, this has
>> always appeared to me very different from the doctrine of racial
>> purity that was so popular in the thirties. I'm not sure if I can
>> explain myself coherently, but it seems to me that in Tolkien you
>> inherit not just the _right_ to rule, but actually also an
>> _obligation_ to rule (I am here speaking of the rulers on the
>> 'good' side, not those who desire to dominate their subjects).
>
> Yes, a version of the Divine Right of Kings. But the Divine Right
> in its best applications meant that the king was chosen to rule
> and so has an obligation to rule...an obligation to God and to the
> ruled.
That's precisely what -- without actually knowing this ;-) -- meant,
thanks.
I think it is an important aspect of Tolkien's vision of the good rule
that the ruler dosn't actually choose to rule, but the obligation to
rule is somehow forced upon the ruler by circumstances (such as
inheritance). This reaches back also to Tolkien's statement as quoted
by Carpenter that 'Touching your cap to the Squire may be damn bad for
the Squire, but it's damn good for you.' -- ruling is bad for you, and
so it must be approached with reluctance and humility lest it corrupts
the ruler.
>> At the same time there is a strong implication that nobility is
>> somehow hereditary --
I should probably have been more explicit and said 'spiritual
nobility' or 'ennoblement' -- I hope it was clear what I meant anyway.
>> most obvious in those Men who has some elvish blood (the line of
>> Elros and the line of Dol Amroth). We have spoken about magic
>> being related to proximity to the divine, but it also seems to
>> me that this is true also of this hereditary nobility that is
>> associated with the right & obligation to rule.
>
> Yes, derived among men by proximity to the Elves...but only Elves
> of certain houses...those who lived in the BLessed Realm and
> returned and the human houses who stood with them. We're not
> talking about relatives of Thranduil here.
Only to a lesser extent. The Elvish strain in the Princes of Dol Amroth
is, I would say, an example of this effect to a lesser degree. In one
version Tolkien made the Elvish strain the reason for the elevation of
the family to the nobility (though in another version, there was a
prince in the family long before the introduction of the Elvish
strain).
Doesn't Tolkien also say something in one of his letters about the
Elvish strain being an ennoblement of man-kind as such?
<searching>
Right:
The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed
represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement
of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace
the Elves.
[_Letters_ #153 to Peter Hastings (draft), September 1954]
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If no thought
your mind does visit,
make your speech
not too explicit.
- Piet Hein, /The Case for Obscurity/
Öjevind Lång
> In message <news:hirqms$lmc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
[snip]
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not Dunlendings the descendants
>> of Sauron worshippers from the Dark Years,
>
> Yes, that's how I recall it also.
They were descendants of their close kin. So were the Men of Bree. However,
those two groups had moved north before the Men of the White Mountains began
to worship Sauron. I'm too lazy to locate the proper passage saying this at
the moment, but I may do it later if sombody else doesn't beat me to it.
>> and more or less conquered by the Rohirrim (in spite of the ceding
>> of the territory by Gondor)?
>
> I suppose that they must have been conquered at some point by Gondor --
> at least I believe that Dunland at one point was counted a part of
> Gondor along with Minhiriath. I also seem to remember that there were
> several border disputes with Rohan, but I don't recall if Rohan had to
> conquer Dunland as such.
There is no statement that Dunland as a whole was ever conquered by the
Rohirrim; they only stole its eastern parts. Something like the relation
beteween England and Wales. Of course, Wales as a whole was at a much later
date conqueerd by the English, but that's another story. The relations
betwen the Rohirrim and the Dunlednings are comparable to those between the
Anglo-Saxons and the Welsh of unconquered Wales in the early Middle Ages.
>> If so, a conquered people, no matter how high in society some had
>> risen, would always be suspect and outcast.
No, the Dunlendings do not seem to ever have worshipped Sauron. Neither, of
course, did the Dr�edain, whom the Rohirrim prior to the War of the Ring
treated cruelly and even hunted for sport.
> I suspect that the mere fact that they were Men of Darkness while the
> Rohirrim were Men of Twilight (i.e. not N�men�reans, but nevertheless
> descendants of the Edain and not Sauron-worshippers) would be enough to
> explain rather severe prejudice against the Dunlendings.
I completely agree.
[snip]
> Right:
> The entering into Men of the Elven-strain is indeed
> represented as part of a Divine Plan for the ennoblement
> of the Human Race, from the beginning destined to replace
> the Elves.
> [_Letters_ #153 to Peter Hastings (draft), September 1954]
Despite some late and very strange writings on the subject, a great number
of D�endain must have had some Elvish ancestry at the time of the War of the
Ring. The members of Grey Company are actually referred to as "the kindred",
which implies consangunienty.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
I had hoped that Oscric (Neville Percy) would have returned to give his
side of the case, and therefore I kept Bill's message on my to-do list
;-) Going through my list, I realized that Oscric has not responded,
and so I decided to dig out the copies of the magazine that I had saved
and to try my best at responding to Bill's queries.
In message <news:eJqdneNXyO1jTtLW...@giganews.com>
"Bill O'Meally" <omea...@wise.rr.com> spoke these staves:
>
> Osric wrote:
>>
Seemingly on random, this came out of a discussion of other matters
(the influence of certain Norse ideas on Tolkien) in January (the
thread was "Helm Hammerhand and Racial Superiority"). All that there
ever was to this sub-thread is quoted below.
>> I don't know how much to make of this. I wrote an article (for
>> the online mag in my sig)[*] on JRRT's barrow-wight(s) and
>> decided we couldn't draw any strong conclusions on the nature of
>> barrow-wights.
>
> Would you care to share some of the points in your article here? I
> would love to hear them.
The on-line magazine in question, _Other Minds_, is, according to
themselves �The Unofficial Role-Playing Magazine for J.R.R. Tolkien�s
Middle-earth and beyond�. That is, the focus is role-playing --
primarily in Middle-earth.
I presume that the article in question is the �Of Barrow-wights�
article which appears in two parts in issues 1 and 3 by Neville Percy.
The context is important because the focus is clearly on describing
something that is definite enough to be useful in a roleplaying game --
the regrettable lack of information about the Barrow-wights in
Tolkien's writings make this completely impossible without a good deal
of 'filling out' -- of inter- and extrapolating from Tolkien's scanty
descriptions.
The article clearly displays an impressive knowledge of the subject --
I don't cannot recall any relevant primary source that is not referred
to at least in passing. In context, I think it is appropriate not to go
into every discussion and qualify every statement by �I believe�, but
even so I did find that there was rather a lot of jumping to
conclusions (at times leading me to think of Pippin's leap over the
crack in �A Journey in the Dark�). Quite possibly I am being overly
sensitive, but when highly debatable leaps with no supporting evidence
is glossed over using such glosses as �clearly�, �surely�, �certainly�
etc. I tend to become wary.
In most cases I agree that the conclusions are the most likely -- and I
can only think of one instance where I would take my disagreement
further than to saying that I interpret things differently (this is
when the author suggests that the Witch-king is �incorporeal�;
something I believe can be shown to be inconsistent with Tolkien's
descriptions).
Part two of the article (in _Other Minds_ #3) is devoted to a survey of
the history of Barrow-wights that look into the etymology, into the
development of the concept within Tolkien's writings and to conceptual
precursors in Norse mythology. This part was, to me, the more
interesting since it includes stuff that I hadn't seen or noticed
earlier and the author clearly knows a lot about his subject.
Whatever my reservations about the scholarship of the article (by which
I mean the drawing of conclusions rather than the raw knowledge
itself), I can highly recommend the article.
> Personally, I find it tempting to explain the barrow-wights as
> bodies of the dead, already buried in the Barrow Downs, but
> possesed by the unhoused /fear/ of elves who have died or were
> killed, but remained in ME having refused the summons of Mandos.
Yes, I agree that it is a very tempting explanation. The article also
reaches the conclusion that the Barrow-wights are corpses animated by
spirits, though I think there is a tendency to favour Ainurin spirits
(presumably some of the unnamed other orders that entered Arda).
Though there is more to the true nature of the
barrow-wights than meets the eye, the people of
Middle-earth would have considered them to be undead.
They appear as corpses risen again after burial
in the barrow-mounds, living on by a power of sorcery
and preying on anyone they find in the countryside
during the hours of darkness.
And later
Suggestions as to the nature of the Wightspirits
include fallen maiar, corrupted �alar or
nature spirits, �Houseless� Elves, or the souls
of sorcerers or morg�l-stricken Men. Though
the wights were described as being sent from
Angmar and Rhudaur, their primary existence
seems to be in an �other world� as hinted at by
Tolkien�s use of metaphors of extreme distance.
This suggests them to be more alien
than the souls of formerly incarnate Elves or
Men.
Incidentally the flat-out statement in the first passage that the
Barrow-wights �appear as corpses risen again after burial� is one of
the cases where I think the author is jumping to a conclusion over a
void of non-existing evidence: apart from some very vague hints we have
absolutely no idea what the Barrow-wights appear as.
> In 'Laws and Customs' (pp 222-224), the 'Unbodied', or the
> 'Houseless' /fear/ of elves are described as being evil, or at
> least flawed, by nature. Many had already turned to darkness
> before death, but even those who hadn't, in the very act of
> refusing the summons of Mandos, were therefore tainted. The
> practice of attempting to master these spirits by Sauron and his
> servants is what is described as necromancy. Based on this, the
> WK, being Sauron's most powerful servant, was also more than
> likely a necromancer. We know that the wights were evil spirits
> sent by the Witch King out of Angmar to dwell in the Barrow Downs.
> (UT p 348)
Yes. The greatest weakness of this explanation to my mind is that the
process that Tolkien describes in �Laws and Customs� is clearly that of
taking over a living body -- it is not clear that they possess the
ability to animate a dead body (I think one could construct a very
strong argument as to why this should not, at least in general, be
possible).
It seems to me that one of the characteristics of evil in Tolkien's
world is that it is much concerned with power -- power is the basis for
relations between evil creatures and in particular of the hierarchical
structures of evil organisations. With this in mind, it is less
credible for me that the Barrow-wights should be animated by �alar
(i.e. naturally discarnate spirits) instead of f�ar (i.e. naturally
incarnate spirits -- or souls) simply because they were clearly
commanded by the Witch-king during his reign in Angmar.
On the other hand, there are some hints in various writings that there
might be Ainur with no more power than one of the Eruh�ni. Even a
Balrog could be defeated by one of the stronger Elves in single combat,
and it is certainly not my impression that the Balrogs belong to the
weakest of the Ainur in Arda; quite possibly there are other Ainur out
there with no more power than, say, old Hamfast Gamgee.
In the end I will have to remain undecided as to the nature of the
spirits that the Witch-king sent to occupy the Barrows, and while I do
consider it more likely that these evil spirits animated the remains of
the dead that they found in the barrows, the margin is not so big that
I can rule out other means of incarnation -- if they are of Ainurin
origin we might consider self-arrayal, and in all cases another
possibility is a somewhat looser sense of animation by which �bodies�
are constructed from whatever is available -- a mix of the various
remains of all the people in the barrow and possibly even other
materials (constrain to organic material or not as you see fit).
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Men, said the Devil,
are good to their brothers:
they don't want to mend
their own ways, but each other's.
- Piet Hein, /Mankind/