Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elempí
Maybe I'm being merely naive here, but aren't Lewis's and Tolkien's writings, er, stories of mythic scope? Don't mythic stories usually contain such archetypes as kings and queens? Can we really garner anything at all regarding their personal politics from stories they've written that necessarily reward (most of) their heroes with rulership? Just thought I'd ask.
|
When you write, you write what you feel. It's notable that all of Tolkien's absolute leaders - Sauron, Morgoth, Saruman - fell on the side of evil.
Tolkien's positive monarchies and leaderships - From Elessar down to the Thain of the Tooks - assumed the form of benevolent dictators respecting individualism. This is evident in the Mayorship of the Shire - a leader with no actual duties. Likewise, the Thain of the Tooks and the Master of Buckland exerted no real authority. Elessar, at the top of the ladder, felt no desire to force his rule onto others nor for domination; one sees the Shire given autonomy, peace with Harad, etc.
So, while there may be archetypical monarchs, they aren't typical in any other way.
As for Narnia's monarchs, I contest the view that they were any more absolutist than Tolkien's Thain Peregrin or Master Meriadoc. Both worlds offer benevolent dictatorships.
Now to answer the question of hereditary rule. I don't think Tolkien at all endorses it. Over and again, we see hereditary rule fail, from King Earnur to Gondor to Denethor to the warring kingdoms of Arnor. Tolkien did not make a blanket statement: Hereditary monarchy is good.
On the contrary, we can see Tolkien's view that monarchy or leadership has to be proved. Elessar had to prove himself to the world before he could both become King and marry Arwen. The earlier claim of his answer to Kingship of Gondor was rejected because he had done nothing to deserve it. Merry, Pippin and Sam proved themselves worthy of the limited rulership that existed in Middle-Earth.