[Bill Ferny]

Invention was not a Greek virtue. In fact, both Plato and Aristotle had hardly anything good to say about those who endeavored in handiwork, thus by consequence those who invented. The most worthy of pursuits were those of a speculative nature, and only those people from an aristocratic background possessed the leisure to make such pursuits possible. Plato’s three tiered society of plebeian, soldier and statesman is not ashamed to admit that the only virtue of the plebeians and soldiers was that they made it possible for the statesmen to pursue the higher arts.

The good Roman was the epitome of the technocrat. Converse to the Greeks, the Romans had little regard for speculative pursuits, and their technology, while superior to all that had preceded it in the west, was pragmatic, unoriginal and stagnant. This is starkly demonstrated by Rome’s three great technical failures: their failure to develop the waterwheel, their failure to develop a horse harness that didn’t strangle the poor animal, and their failure to develop a feasible, adaptable economy.

(BTW, describing Greco-Roman culture in connection to the historical period called the “Renaissance” is to perpetuate a wistful fantasy. Also, democracy was an Athenian invention, not necessarily Greek per se. Plato’s Republic is not a democracy. Athenian democracy is not the root of modern democracy. Modern democracy has its roots in the social habits formed by the bylaws, communes and trade guilds of the medieval period, expounded and molded by nationalism and the humanisms of the 17th and 18th centuries. Modern western societies are more indebted to the social constructs of the twelfth through fifteenth centuries, as opposed to Classical culture, than historians of previous generations were able or willing to admit.)

The Chinese were the technically advanced peoples from circa 4 BC to AD 1000. For the most part, the Chinese seemed to have the more healthy balance between the speculative and the practical. They developed ingenious methods of agriculture, astronomical/astrological devices, alchemical (gunpowder) and metallurgical (cast iron) discoveries, clocks, and, of course, the architectural marvel of the Great Wall. Most technical innovation in the west (including late Greco-Roman technology) decimated from the far east. The problem with China was its isolation causing this decimation to take place over a very long time.

Neither the Roman or Greek models seem to fit the elves of Middle Earth. The elves are neither speculative aristocrats, nor technocratic autocrats. The only obvious parallel is the one the professor, himself, suggests: the Tuatha De Danann of Celtic myth: inherent magical abilities, immortality, and a fading away in response to human encroachment.

Orcs as Vikings? I think the professor had a much higher opinion of the Scandinavian peoples than that! After all, the hero Beowulf was a Scandinavian.

Provocative post MotW. The parallel between Roman brutality and slavery with Sauron’s evil empires was very astute.

His high societies were distinctively late medieval or even post-medieval/pre-industrial in many ways.

Very true. His depiction of cities is a far cry from the typical medieval city with open sewers and backyard cesspits.

Even our caricature of the Vikings is really a Norman invention.

Not really. Our caricature of the Scandinavians is a monastic one, mostly from Anglo-Saxon and Carolingian victims of Viking raids (negative) and depictions of mythic heroes that floated about the English isles during periods of Scandinavian occupation and settlement, i.e. Beowulf (positive). Normans, on the contrary, were the near direct descendents of Scandinavians, themselves. By the time of the Norman adventures of the eleventh century, Viking raids were an obscure memory.

The Men of the Wild or Darkness, and the heathen kings that Gandalf mentions, really correspond to how Christian would see many who did not know the Light of Christ, and thus, who live with an oppressing and corrupting fear of death.

An interesting notion, but I’m not overly convinced that pagan cultures in general actually had an oppressing and corrupting fear of death. This certainly does not seem to be the case with Celtic or especially the heroic Scandinavian mythologies. Darkness and light, though, are definitely heavy terms in the vocabulary of the Christian mythos.

I'd also be careful of the over- simplification of Christian=Good

Rumil, thankfully Gibbon is no longer considered an authority for serious historical analysis of late antiquity. He is read now only as a demonstration of the attitudes and prejudices of his own generation. For a more factual criticism and analysis of Christianity in late antiquity, try Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Excellent Empire or Henry Chadwick’s The Early Church.

Given Tolkien’s real life convictions, it may be possible that we really are dealing with just such an over-simplification.

I have to disagree with a lack of depth in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic or Scandinavian cultures, though. Archeology consistently provides us with new insight into the complexity and depth of these cultures. Such an impression is mainly due to the failure of these societies to provide us with written documentation.

Given the Scandinavian predilection for the horse, the parallel between the peoples of Rohan and the Scandinavian people can’t be ignored. Though I also see an obvious parallel between the peoples of Rohan and the Lombards.

In the case of Gondor, once again I think the best parallel would be the one mentioned by Tolkien, himself (somewhere in his letters, I believe): an enduring version of the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne. Geographically it makes sense. The Corsairs and men of Umbar are described with imagery clearly reminiscent of Arabs. Carolingian Europe was constantly threatened by Saracen raids from the south and south-west. The various peoples of eastern Middle Earth are very much like the various pagan peoples that constantly threatened Charlemagne’s eastern border. The men of Rohan who originally came from the far north are described with imagery very much like the Scandinavian peoples who inhabited the lands north of Charlemagne’s continent. Interestingly enough, the Scandinavian peoples who settled on the continent, and subsequently became the Normans, settled in the western portion of Charlemagne’s former empire. The peoples of Rohan came from the north and settled in the western portion of the Gondoran empire. In addition, in the LotR, itself, Gondor is described as having fiefs, thus feudalism. Neither Rome nor Greece can be described as feudal, but Charlemagne’s empire most definitely was moving in that direction and was already there in many respects.

DaughterofVana, I would suggest taking a look at Etienne Gilson’s The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. Despite its obvious subject matter, therein you will find a very keen definition of philosophy and its relation to faith, and how both can exist side-by-side, co-existing in even the same sentence, and yet retain their independence without contradiction. I’ll definitely say this: a philosopher does not have to be an agnostic; Aristotle certainly was not!