Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaf
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that book-Aragorn is some kind of zealot, or an aspirating tyrant. He's just as overbearing as the concept of absolute monarchy is in itself!
|
As a side point, but an important one I think, the Gondorian monarchy (and by association the Arnorian as well) was not an absolute one. Tolkien speaks to this in one of the HOME essays. I will find it and post the relevant contents this evening.
Quote:
|
He's willing to bow his own claim to the rules of the golden Hall and in turn agrees (reluctantly) to leave his sword (the very symbol of his kingship) in front of the door.
|
That was a complex situation. I don't know if Tolkien himself had developed all the ultimate complexities at the time of writing. Rohan existed because of the gift of the Steward who ruled until the King returned. Theoretically, that gift could be revoked by the returned King. Aragorn was put in an awkward situation because he was asked (unknowingly on the part of the askers, it is true) to diminish his status and acknowledge the supremacy of the King of Rohan within the bounds of Rohan. Those bounds, however, could still be considered provisional as they had not been confirmed by the King. Acknowledging the claim of the King of Rohan could diminish the legal standing of the King of Gondor should he decide to revoke the gift of Calenardhon.
While Aragorn acted temperamentally, it may have been for show.
Quote:
|
I think Aragorn views his claims as a mixture of privilege and duty. And he's mature enough to act accordingly.
|
I agree with this.