[davem]

I was struck by the similarity of Eomer's words to Aragorn:

"But now, lord, what would you have me do! I must return in haste to Theoden. I spoke warily before my men.

And Faramir's to Frodo:

"I broke off our speech together," said Faramir, 'not only because time pressed, as Master Samwise had reminded me, but also because we were drawing near to matters that were better not debated openly before many men.

I think this brings out both the similarities between the characters & also the differences. In the first Eomer is in the 'submissive' role & Aragorn in the dominant- even though Eomer seems to have the power, whereas in the second Faramir has the dominant role & Frodo is in the position of having to submit to his will. The similarity is obvious - neither Eomer or Faramir feels comfortable discussing the situation in front of their men.

We have almost a mirror image of the Aragorn/Eomer 'confrontation' in the Frodo/Faramir, & I think the similarities & differences are deliberately pointed up by Tolkien. Aragorn clearly displays an unmistakeable authority, nobility & royalty, such that even when he appears out of nowhere to a total stranger those things are plain to see.

Frodo, on the other hand, even though his mission is the more important, has none of those things. Aragorn will not submit, & if necessary will fight an impossible battle with the Rohirrim:

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Anduril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. 'Elendil!" he cried. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dunadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!"

Frodo does submit:

There was nothing for Frodo to do but to fall in with this request, or order. It seemed in any case a wise course for the moment, since this foray of the men of Gondor had made a journey in Ithilien more dangerous than ever.

What's interesting is that Aragorn, with the fate of the West dependent on him refuses to back down, being willing to fight, if necessary, to the death. Frodo, in the same situation, but with the fate of the whole world on his shoulders, submits. Both face imminent death & both make opposing choices.

It seems that Aragorn still has hope (or he has at last found it again). He has accepted his destiny & will from now on do what he knows to be right, whatever risks he must take, while Frodo seems to have submitted to his fate - which is not that of Aragorn - ie to rule, but to serve, to submit to a fate he cannot control, & which has taken him over - took him over way back in Bag End. Frodo's submissiveness increases throughout the story, Aragorn's dominance increases. And in the end Aragorn will choose his own passing from the world, while Frodo will be carried away from it.

But there is a similar mood running through the two halves of TT. The first part is outgoing, 'extravert'; it is the story of men fighting to exert their will, to rule, to order things for the Right. The second half is the story of Hobbits, inward looking, 'introverted', carried along inexorably to their destiny.