[Bêthberry]

Sorry for the protracted reply, Faramir, but the Easter holiday intervened with many activities.

Thank you for providing the quote from the Letters, as you know my copy has disappeared. I think it was that letter I quoted in ages past on the Downs, or possibly another which stated that Gondor was at about the same latitude as Venice—my memory could be playing tricks on me, though, and that detail about latitude might come from Fonstad’s Atlas or Carpenter.

Whether we rely on the Letters or on the characteristics about Gondor in LotR, Gondor clearly has a culture different from that of The Shire and again from that of Rohan and this I think is one of the interesting things you bring out in your essay. Yet I don’t think Gondor quite resembles the city state that your very distinguished historian, Philip James Jones, means in his monumental study. Jones’s book is unquestionably authoritative and important and it has set the standard for study of Italian history (in English) for probably the generation to come. Yet The Italian City-State: From Commune to Signoria was first published in 1997, so it’s argument and perspective was not something Tolkien would have been familiar with. And while Jones was a Reader, Tutor, Fellow and Librarian at Oxford (Brasenose College) in the ‘60’s, ‘70’s, and ‘80’s, I think it unlikely Tolkien, had he even known of Jones’ earlier work, would have been much influenced by Jones’ ideas. That is, I doubt Jones' concept of city state can be found in Tolkien's Gondor.

Why? Because Jones’ work reset the definitions of what powered those city states and what motivated their cultures. He had a very different idea of how the classical world transformed into the modern world than did previous historians and poets and writers. His work is controversial precisely because he in effect denied the traditional humanist understanding of the Renaissance, as well as its dating in the 14th or 15th century. In focusing upon economics, trade, finances, and “mercantile morality” (as in the quote you provided above) and seeing the city-state’s relationship in terms of Adam Smith and Marx (again, as in your quotation), he took a view that was unlike the earlier thought about the inspiring painting, philosophy, art, and culture in the city-states. That is, he questioned traditional assumptions about the Renaissance and the bourgeois city-state. As he put it:

Originally Posted by Jones, p. 5, The Italian City-State

The humanist scheme of history is dead, itself a part of history.

His is a very different “Venice” or “Florence” than that understood by, for instance, the many Victorians who flocked to Italy (to say nothing of the Romantic poets) and by the Pre-Raphaelites, who even took their name from the Italian painter. It could well be worth a thread to discuss Tolkien’s relationship to these immediate predecessors, who, like Tolkien himself, were not influenced by Machiavelli and Marx, as was Jones.

What also differentiates Tolkien from Jones’ view of the city states is Tolkien’s attitude towards chivalry. This attitude permeates LotR and it is a significant factor in his depiction of history and culture, especially since, as LotR progresses, in many ways it leaves off the air of realism about The Shire and moves closer towards a heroic mode. (I use the word ‘realism’ guardedly and in relation to previous discussions here on the Downs about the narrative style of LotR.) In fact, I would argue that in many ways The Shire is closer as a recent past than Gondor to Tolkien’s first readers. Even Tolkien’s prose changes as the book develops, as do the vocabulary and style of the characters’ dialogue. (Initially, Gimli’s and Legolas’ style of speech is quite different but ultimately both come to speak in a similar style.) In fact, it’s probably a little wicked of me to quote Jones’ description of the pre-city-state cultures to characterize Tolkien’s, but I will anyway.

Originally Posted by Jones, The Italian City-States, p. 7

The professed ideal was a civic, humanist ethic which exalted moral and military excellence (virtus, and censured, even outlawed, as associated evils, acquisitiveness (quaestus), luxury, and idleness. By this code, wealth, if not deemed a trust, was to be used, as won, honourably (bono modo), and, with all other faculties, exploited not for self but for family, friends, and most of all the state.

I could also point to Tolkien’s discussion of chivalry in his "The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelm's Son”, particularly his Extended Comment on the Old English word ‘ofermod’, where he says that the chivalric desire for honour, motivated by pride, compromises the true nature of chivalry. Tolkien discusses “Sir Gawain” as well as the poem “Maldon”.

Originally Posted by Tolkien, HoBBS

We have two poets that study at length the heroic and chivalrous, with both art and thought, in the older ages: one near the beginning in Beowulf; one near the end in Sir Gawain. And probably a third, more near the middle, in Maldon, if we had all his work. It is not surprising that any consideration of the work of one of these leads to the others. Sir Gawain, the latest, is the most fully conscious, and is in plain intention a criticism or valuation of a whole code of sentiment and conduct, in which heroic courage is only a part, with different loyalties to serve. Yet it is a poem with many inner likenesses to Beowulf, deeper than the use of the old "alliterative" metre, which is none the less significant. Sir Gawain, as the exemplar of chivalry, is of course shown to be deeply concerned for his own honour, and though the things considered honour¬able may have shifted or been enlarged, loyalty to word and to allegiance, and unflinching courage re¬main. These are tested in adventures no nearer to ordinary life than Grendel or the dragon; but Gawain's conduct is made more worthy, and more worth con¬sidering, again because he is a subordinate. He is involved in peril and the certain prospect of death simply by loyalty, and. the desire to secure the safety and dignity of his lord, King Arthur. And upon him depends in his quest the honour of his lord and of his heorðwerod, the Round Table.

This understanding of chivalry is particularly important in a comparison of Boromir’s, Faramir’s, and Denethor’s stories.

Now, what does all this have to do with your paper? It is prompted by the emphasis, both in your paper and in your reply here, on the “nationality” of Gondor, for what I meant by “city-state” is not what you meant by the same word as evidenced by the quotation from Jones. Ultimately, I think, you place greater emphasis on certain modern aspects of Gondor than I would. For instance, I would not call the pride of Gondor “a strong sense of nationality” (p. 199), as you do, for to me the claims and comments that Boromir and Faramir make for the bastion of free peoples rather represents a fealty.

The characteristics of Gondor are not unalloyed, if I may make use of Tolkien’s metaphor in his discussion of chivalry, but blended. While Aragorn’s mitigating of Beregond’s doom shows Aragorn rejecting a knee-jerk application of the old punishment of death, Aragorn nonethess reaffirms the chivalric question of obedience and duty in a subordinate; he sends Beregond into exile as it were, but an exile of service to Faramir, for whose life Beregond broke the oath to Denethor. It’s as wise and neat an answer as any Solomon could have come up with and one the poet of Beowulf, who himself questioned the owner of such an allegiance, might well acclaim. There are many other aspects of Gondor that make it a realm of chivalry rather than incipient capitalist hoard. Faramir’s debate with Gollem and Frodo is based upon faithful word and ultimately Faramir respects the troth that Frodo has pledged with Gollem, despite his misgivings. Neither trade nor commerce binds Rohan and Gondor, but Eomer’s love for Aragorn and an ancient word. The symbolism of the medieval bower informs the story of Faramir and Eowyn. And Aragorn himself refers to the Gondorians’ attitude towards their city in a decidedly traditional way, “And who then shall govern Gondor and those who look to this City as to their queen . . .”(The Steward and the King).

This leaves me with a rejoinder about “Gondor, Gondor”, which you twice refer to as a national anthem, using quotation marks, p. 185, the first page, and p. 211, the last page.

Gondorian songs and poems are, however, only quoted twice, a “national anthem” and a rhyme about a herb. . . .

The lack of Gondorian songs, save the “national anthem” may be due to Tolkien not wanting to make Gondor seem too “modern” or too similar to the United Kingdom at war in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.

It is only Aragorn who recites “Gondor, Gondor”, so how can it be said to be a Gondorian anthem?

The song sung by Aragorn, “Gondor! Gondor”, resembles a national anthem, which Gondor was sophisticated enough to have.

Leaving aside the question of how much the song resembles the Polish anthem, there doesn’t appear evidence that the song was known in Gondor or sung in Gondor. Amid all the music and singing and celebration after the destruction of the Ring and the fall of Sauron, not once is “Gondor, Gondor” mentioned. If it is the national anthem and not, as Helen eloquently suggests, Aragorn’s plaintive song of exile, then why is it absent from the celebrations? The narrative plays out the song with Aragorn’s discovery of the new tree but no one else sings the song. It would appear to be his and not Gondor’s.

I like the distinction you bring out about the prevalence of song in different parts of LotR. I would not have pondered the nature of military music in it without your paper. I might not agree with your characterization of Gondorian music or of Gondor, but I certainly appreciate how your thoughts have been a springboard for mine and for that I sincerely thank you.