The Role of Women in The Lord of the Rings

[Firefoot]

I find it interesting that Lobelia isn't mentioned at all in this thread. At first glance, she does not have a great many of the qualities of the other women mentioned in this thread (beauty, strength, faithfulness, and the like) but in her own way some of these are qualities she possesses.

First off, beauty. I don't think Tolkien ever particularly described her appearance, but her personality is so very sour that it seems that it would be almost enough to imagine her looks being the same way. Being that she is portrayed as a "baddie" for most of her time in both the Hobbit and LotR, this does not seem to go against the pattern that has seemingly developed for the women.

Next, strength. I will put perseverence in with this one, as they seem to go hand-in-hand. This is a quality that I think Lobelia has quite a bit of. Lobelia is one of the very few hobbits to stand up to the Ruffians, displaying courage and spunkiness. She showed great perseverence in her attempts to get Bag-end as well, waiting 80 or so years before it was finally hers, and even then she didn't get to hold onto it long. She did show some moral kindness and strength at the end of LotR as well when she let Frodo have Bag-end back.

Faithfulness. Strange as this may sound, Lobelia did stick behind Lotho towards the end, who did not return the favor to her in not getting her out of the Lockholes. Even if it wasn't perhaps going toward the right motives, it was her family, and it shows somthing about her character that she sticks by her family.

[Evisse the Blue]

This is a fascinating discussion and it's heading in an interesting direction, but I have something to say that's a bit off-topic, concerning Lobelia, whom Firefoot talked about in detail. I think through this character, Tolkien was trying to underline the difference between the evil and the dislikeable. In our day to day mundane world we seldom meet evil incarnate, rather these annoying pesky individuals, which our imagination turns into monsters come to torture us. People often act this way, applying the attribute of 'bad' to one whom they dislike. Frodo's higher wisdom and his deeper knowledge of evil at the end of his quest made him more tolerant to Lobelia's ways.
To get more on topic: I agree with Firefoot that beyond Lobelia's annoying surface lies the traditional feminine creature, protective and caring towards her family and faithful towards those whom she loved. One can argue she's even got a bit of Eowyn in her when she attacks the ruffians with her umbrella!

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

However, the context of Eowyn's marriage is clearly to suggest that she will return to a domestic sphere.

My point is that the men also return to a domestic sphere. Sam, Merry, and Pippin marry and settle down. Faramir makes a garden. After Sauron is defeated, warriors and heroic deeds are no longer required. Everyone can now move to the life they were fighting for.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It strikes me that Mr. Underhill is clearly engaging in imaginative extrapolation of the text when he envisages a feisty wife for Faramir.

I think you're the one who's extrapolating, or else just plain inventing. Éowyn is a feisty character prior to marriage. There's no reason to suppose that her essential nature changes after she finds love with Faramir -- unless you're determined to view her as a sellout. Her first action after she agrees to Faramir's proposal is to contradict the Warden of the Houses when he releases her into Faramir's care: "Yet now that I have leave to depart, I would remain." Her turn from death and slaying to become a healer and "lover of all things that grow and are not barren" is part of a wider motif of a spring flowering in Middle-earth with the passing of the Shadow. The White Tree blossoms, the Mallorn grows in the Shire, babies are born.

As to your comments regarding Rosie, well, I'll chalk them up to your self-admitted snappiness. Suffice to say that I hope you aren't suggesting that her role as wife and mother at large is somehow dishonorable or shameful.

Lastly, perhaps you ought to at least toss out the number of the letter you reference so that interested parties can get some context, instead of just dropping veiled suggestions that Tolkien was a raging mysogynist. Who knows? Maybe the prof had lemon with his tea when he was composing that day.

[Lalwendë]

I was thinking about how Tolkien created his female characters and came up with a couple of thoughts on how they might be viewed.

Idealised Femininity
Many of the women in Tolkien are portrayed as figures to be idolised by men. Arwen is the epitome of the 'princess' figure, to be 'won' by Aragorn. He must prove his worth by great deeds, prove to her father that he is worthy, and she will not be given to anyone less than a king, or she will be 'shut away' forever in Valinor, beyond the reach of ordinary men. Galadriel is a powerful queenly figure, beautiful, noble and also terrifying to men; only those who are essentially 'good' are not blinded by this power and beauty. Eowyn is a fatherless daughter, a tragic figure who wins nobility and is rewarded with the love of a man who has gone through troubles like herself. Even Rosie is idealised, by Sam who eventually 'wins' her hand and provides her with an enormous family, a dynasty of Gamgees.

Thinking of the women in this way reminds me of the pre-raphaelite painters who portrayed women as beautiful, aspirational figures. They are somewhat 'removed' from the struggles of ordinary mortals. This in turn leads to the medieval courtly view of femininity, which is something which Tolkien could quite easily have been inspired by. He may have seen that in a world of heroes, the women must match up to this ideal.

Female Symbols
I often think of significant female figures or archetypes in history or myth when I read about women in ME. Ioreth is very much like one of the medicine women of ancient cultures, she is derided as relying upon old wives' tales, yet is an effective healer and a valuable part of Minas Tirith society. Eowyn, looked at from this respect, could be viewed as Boudicca, going to war out of sheer despair, and interestingly, there are goddesses of war in Celtic legend, and tales of shield maidens. Galadriel in this line of thought could be viewed as a priestess, able to see visions due to her immense power and insight, and also a bestower of magical gifts. Shelob is symbolic of the 'hag', Rosie as the 'mother' and Arwen of the 'maiden'.

[Encaitare]

Galadriel in this line of thought could be viewed as a priestess, able to see visions due to her immense power and insight, and also a bestower of magical gifts. Shelob is symbolic of the 'hag', Rosie as the 'mother' and Arwen of the 'maiden'.

If we're going to follow the Triple Goddess idea here, then I'd like to add my two cents! Arwen as the Maiden makes sense, despite her age, and Rosie clearly works as the Mother (and how!). But as for the Hag or Crone, I would not say Shelob. These words have very negative connotations; they immediately bring to mind an ancient, ugly woman with a nasty streak. However, religions based on the Triple Goddess consider the Crone to be wise and powerful -- her male counterpart is the Sage or the Elder, which has far more positive connotations. Therefore I would say the Crone would be Galadriel. She does not look old, but she has the wisdom of ages and the ability to use "Elvish magic."

[Bêthberry]

You are very right, Mr. Underhill, that Eowyn's

turn from death and slaying to become a healer and "lover of all things that grow and are not barren" is part of a wider motif of a spring flowering in Middle-earth with the passing of the Shadow. The White Tree blossoms, the Mallorn grows in the Shire, babies are born.

It is even more, I would suggest. Let me elaborate and then explain why, ultimately, I am saddened by the symbolism.

One of the most eloquent and beautiful chapters of LotR is, to me at least, "The Stewart and the King", in no small measure because of the lyricism with which Tolkien treats Faramir and Eowyn. I grant all that and I am moved immeasurably by it.

The artistic vision whick Tolkien uses to symbolise the healing of Rohan through the figure of Eowyn is brilliant in terms of unity, economy, proportion and (I add in edit) even the daring to use a female character for its warrior status--perhaps even hinting at something here which Estelyn has suggsested on her thread, Females--Misssing in Action. (end of edit here). The healing of Eowyn is the healing of Rohan, released from the long dark seige of the Shadow. This is at once a brilliant stroke and (again to me) a disappointment. Although we already know the outcome of the quest, we know that Frodo succeeds in bringing the Ring to its destruction, the time frame is repeated. The passage bears quoting.

"Yes, we wait for the stroke of doom," said Faramir. And they said no more; and it seemed to them as they stood upon the wall that the wind died, and the light failed, and Sun was bleared, and all sounds in the City or in the lands about were hushed: neither wind, nor voice, nor bird-call, nor rustle of leaf, nor their own breath could be heard; the very beating of their hearts was stilled. Time halted.

And as they stood so, their hands met and clasped, thought they did not know it. And still they waited for they knew not what. Then presently it seemed to them that above the ridges of the distant mountains another vast mountain of darkness rose, towering up like a wave that should engulf the world, and about it lightning flickered; and then a tremor ran through the earth, and they felt the walls of the City quiver. A sound like a sigh went up from all the lands about them; and their hearts beat suddenly again.

"It reminds me of Numenor," said Faramir, ....

. . . .

And so they stood on the walls of the City of Gondor, and a great wind rose and blew, and their hair, raven and golden, streamed out mingling in the air. And the Shadow departed, and the Sun was unveiled, and the light leaped forth; and the waters of the Anduin shone like silver, ...

After that beautiful image of their hair mingling, we hardly need the proposal scene which follows several days later, yet it does not fail to move us and provide more coherence.

"I would," said Faramir. And he took her in his arms and kissed her under the sunlit sky, and he cared not that they stood high upon the walls in the sight of many. And many indeed saw them and the light that shone about them as they came down from the walls and went hand in hand to the Houses of Healing.

And to the Warden of the Houses, Faramir said: "Here is the Lady Eowyn of Rohan, and she is healed."

I grant all the beauty and proportion and symmetry. Yet, strangely, I do not read the passage where Eowyn refutes the Warden's dismissal of her as exerting her selfhood. It rather represents--again to me--the extent to which her entire focus has been shifted to Faramir, her new home, her new priorities.

It will seem curmudgeonly of me to step back and ponder this structure, but I nontheless will. As beautiful as the symmetry is I have to ask myself why Tolkien choose to use the most "modern" female character to represent this very positive move from warrior society to peacful endeavour. The healing metaphor is powerful and perfect for the ending of the warlike nature of Rohan, but to portray the women who wanted more than domestic acitivity as needing to be healed of her desire, as if it were a disease, ultimately disappoints me. Even granting that the males turn now to peaceful acitivity. But they get to do things, have activities outside the home. They still have a life and purpose beyond the threshold of the home. But Eowyn, in wanting this "more", this life of exertion and activity and intellectual endeavour, must be healed of it. I have to ask myself why Tolkien choose that particular female character to function in that particular way.

Tolkien was, as far as I can tell from his letters and the breadth and generosity of his vision, a very thoughtful, gracious, generous man. He was not cruel nor in any way bullying. Far from it. But he was a man of his generation and his faith. When I read the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910/1911, under the entry "Woman" I find statements to the effect that women do not need to be educated, for the sphere to which they are called does not require it. The station to which women are called is honourable, but it is a domestic station.

So I turn to, Mr. Underhill, to Letter # 43, which Tolkien wrote to his son Michael 6-8 March 1941. It is a very frank letter offering advice about marriage and the relation of the sexes from a father to a son. I doubt it was written with any dispeptic mood. Yet his concept of female sexuality--using the term "uncorrupted"--and his reading of his female students are thoroughly of his time and place.

How quickly an intelligent woman can be taught, grasp his ideas, see his point--and how (with rare exceptions) they can go no further, when they leave his hand, or when they cease to take a personal interest in him
. . .

Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing), she may actually 'fall in love.' Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her...

Time and acculturation make many changes and even the latest edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia takes a different point of view than the 1911 one. I by no means disparage the role of wife or mother but when I see it presented through Rosie's thirteen children, I see a vision of life, sexuality, home, purpose, which is an (edit here) a sticking point to me. Who who has seen the effects of countless years of childbearing on a woman and on the children she bears can countenance the size of Sam and Rosie's family? (And who has seen the effects of overpopulation on our Earth today.) There are people I know and to their values and opinions I will politely and respectfully demur. I cannot--(edit here) unless it is to take this number thirteen, the baker's dozen, as a magical number and see it as part of the aspects of faerie applied to the hobbits. Still and all, why to the hobbit wife and not the noble wife? (end of edit).

Lalwendë, your point about the similarity to the pre-Raphaelites is very good! Some of Tolkien's drawings remind me very much of the Art Nouveau develpments of the Pre-Raphealite art.

Mr. Hedgethistle, I have forsworn my tea and lemon today in favour of lighter refreshment.

No doubt there are typos here and turns of phrasing which I would change but I have no time now to revise. I shall return to reread this. (Edit: I have corrected coding typos and changed some phrasing, before I read the posts which have now been made after mind.)

[Child of the 7th Age]

I by no means disparage the role of wife or mother but when I see it presented through Rosie's thirteen children, I see a vision of life, sexuality, home, purpose, which is an abomination to me. Who who has seen the effects of countless years of childbearing on a woman and on the children she bears can countenance the size of Sam and Rosie's family? (And who has seen the effects of overpopulation on our Earth today.) There are people I know and to their values and opinions I will politely and respectfully demur. I cannot.

Bethberry -

I'm going to address the question of Rose and Sam, which you've raised in the quote above. While this is not the specific example of Eowyn which was the orginal center of the discussion, it ties in very closely. And you do indicate that you see a connection between Eowyn's ending and that of Rose, and that you are not comfortable with either image.

Regarding the quote that appears above....."abomination" is a very strong word, and I find I can not agree with it. I know you have mentioned your dislike of the example of Rosie and Sam and their large family on previous threads, but have never discussed this as explicitly as here. I wouldn't have had a problem if you had simply indicated you personally would not care to do things the way Rosie did. But your statement seems a good deal stronger and more wide reaching than that. My problem comes when I feel you are putting forward a general judgment that you regard as preferable in all situations and for all women. If that is the case, and I've not misread you, I feel that you are "limiting" women in a way that's not too different from those who would make blanket pronouncements that women should or should not do certain things, or take up certain occupations. If I've misread this, please clarify.

On a personal level, I live in a community where, by choice, people have large families. (There is no prohibition against birth control so that isn't a factor.) While I don't know anyone with thirteen offspring, families with five to eight children are not unusual, and that is definitely above society's norm. Many of these offspring are biological; some of the families include adopted children as well; a number of the latter have special needs. I know many of these women intimately and have some idea about their motivations for bearing and/or raising larger numbers of children than is typical. In every case, it is their own choice, not something forced upon them from outside. Some of them come from large families themselves and remember with happiness the experience of growing up in such a warm, bustling environment. Interestingly, some of these families are more aware of the need to conserve and use the earth carefully than my own two offspring who are frankly more catered to and less used to the idea of "sharing", recyling clothes, or doing without.

For the most part, these mothers are very aware that in today's politically correct world people automatically look askance at large families. They deal gracefully with the comments and gibes. While some of them are so-called "stay-at-home moms" (a term I personally dislike), a surprising number are physicians, dentists, and teachers. Yet, whatever their professional accomplishments, their children are their pride and joy. So, even in terms of the moden world, I think we need to be very careful about making assumptions about why a woman would choose to have a large family and what that means in terms of her identity and degree of independence.

However, we are talking about Middle-earth, not 21st century U.S. or Canada. And the world Tolkien postulates is very different than our own. First, there is no question of overpopulation. There are vast lands in Middle-earth which used to contain a higher population, but where no one lives now. The danger in Middle-earth at the end of the Third Age seemed to be that of not enough people rather than too many. Ents, elves and dwarves were all seemingly headed for virtual or actual extinction because of the lack of fruitful unions. That meant it was up to the Hobbits and Men to get things rolling again. Just as at the end of World War II, after a long period of depression and war when people had to put off many things in their personal life, there was a surge in marriages and childbearing.

Moreover, Middle-earth is an agrarian/non technological society seemingly set at some point in the past. And although it's been said many times before, children were a blessing and a boon in such a situation to a degree that we can not imagine today. They were able to help in the fields, to do the vital chores inside the house, and to provide for the parents in their old age. We expect the state and the labor market to fill these roles today. In years longpast, this was done by the extended household.

It is also true that the book depicts ways of thinking, acting and customs that make more sense in the context of Middle-earth than they would in our own world today. As much as I love Frodo and Sam, I would not recommend that we try and duplicate the class structure and attitudes that governed their relations. Nor do I feel that Tolkien was suggesting we do that. In the same way, while Sam and Rose's production of thirteen children was meant to make a point in the context of the early Fourth Age, it was not intended to serve as a model for our own behavior or even to be an indication of how the author regarded the modern women. I do not doubt that Tolkien's attitudes were more "old-fashioned" than yours or mine (ours too will look old fashioned when compared with those who come after us!), yet he was not unbending or inflexible. His admiration for his maiden aunt , the one who went on many extraordinary adventures including mountain climbling and in no way seemed conventional, appears to have been heartfelt.

In short, especially as an historian, I am leery about reading our own modern customs and politial preferences back into Middle-earth. We could do a similar negative critique of class relations or the type of governments that are presented in the book. This is perhaps an instance of the kind of differences of opinion that surfaced on the canon thread. My preference here is to take the author at face value, to accept his depiction of the Gamgee couple with large family as a happy and desirable conclusion, even though my own personal experience in modern America has been very different.

Please excuse me if I have tread on any toes inadvertently since I know you have strong feelings about this.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

As beautiful as the symmetry is I have to ask myself why Tolkien choose to use the most "modern" female character to represent this very positive move from warrior society to peacful endeavour. The healing metaphor is powerful and perfect for the ending of the warlike nature of Rohan, but to portray the women who wanted more than domestic acitivity as needing to be healed of her desire, as if it were a disease, ultimately disappoints me.

But is Eowyn a 'modern' female character - certainly she can be presented in that way (as in the movie), but I'm not sure Tolkien saw her in that way. Her response to the Witch King's taunt 'No living man may hinder me' is, as has been pointed out, not a declaration of her feminist politics, but a mocking response (not 'I am no man! as in the movie, but 'No living man am I!) It is no more of a 'feminist' response than if he had said 'No Gondorian may hinder me!' & she was to respond 'No Gondorian am I! You look on one of the Rohirrim!'

Of course, as Child points out, Middle earth is not this world - there are very few alternatives available - basically find yourself a job healing or slaying. But as Leslie A Donovan points out in her essay, The Valkyrie reflex in the Lord of the Rings:

Yet despite the answers love provides, Eowyn, like her Valkyrie counterparts, retains her shield-maiden spirit, 'tamed' to be sure, but not diminished. Rather, with her marriage to Faramir, she commits her public & private selves to a union that satisfies both aspects of her nature. Although she says, 'I will be a shield maiden no longer, nor vie with the Great Riders, nor take joy only in the songs of slaying, I will be a healer & love all things that grow', the use here of the word 'only' insists taht in the future she will not simply reject but transcend the limitations of her shield-maiden role. Her new awareness acknowledges the effects of healing as well as of battle, of growth as well as of death. In this Eowyn integrates her dual nature by joining her Valkyrie identified public goal of restoring her people to their previous cultural glory to her newly percieved individual needs of pursuing love as well as battle. By not permitting the former to dominate, however, her transformation allows both to co-exist & draw strength from each other. To live with Faramir in Ithilien is not a rejection but an extension of Rohan, for her cultural identity as a Valkyrie is still authoritative, though it is now completed by her personal, emotional fulfilment as well. In this unified state, her character becomes more than a Lord's second-in-command. Instead, Eowyn's future suggests her ruling side by side with Faramir through her personal volition & with cultural purpose, each individual completing the other.

Donovan in Tolkien the Medievalist

Surely, Tolkien condemns the whole idea of women fighting, but he sees war itself as ultimately tragic & wrong. Eowyn's desire for a glorious death in battle is 'wrong' - something she must be healed of - but we are entitled to ask whether he is offering us a concept of a 'healed' Eowyn being simply a wife & mother. I do side with Child & Donovan on this one - what else could she do - this is not the modern world, where a variety of careers are on offer. Eowyn's choices are simply between love (& the rule of a people) or carrying on with the slaughter - & (outside the fantasies of teen readers & fanfic writers) what kind of existence is that? In Middle earth everyone's choices are limited to some variation on healing or killing, loving or hating. What better alternative, within the limitations of Middle earth, could Tolkien have come up with to symbolise Eowyn's healing?

In short, Eowyn cannot, as far as I can see, be considered a 'modern' character, because Middle earth is not a 'modern' world. Feminism would be simply anachronistic & unconvincing. Maybe Tolkien did have some subtle 'political' point to make about 'moderns', but that doesn't come through for me in my reading of the book, because I can't think of any better result for Eowyn than what she gets.