LotR -- Book 5 - Chapter 05 - The Ride of the Rohirrim

[Lhunardawen]

Firefoot: You're most probably right. This chapter is just so beautifully poignant that over-analysis can ruin its magic.

And you've just done an over-analysis of the text, kiddo.



The first thing that struck me here is Merry's selflessness.

Poor Pippin, shut up in the great city of stone, lonely and afraid. Merry wished he was a tall Rider like Éomer and could blow a horn or something and go galloping to his rescue.

I'm quite sure a lot of kids have wished they could be something, but mostly for their own benefit. Merry here mirrors the sentiment of a child who wishes to be like someone else - someone he obviously admires though not explicitly stated - not so he could have renown and glory, but to save his friend. How swoon-worthy is that? Not again...

I have to admit I have never exactly been a fan of the Wild Men. Sure, I appreciated all their help, but I did not find them very much worthy of attention. After reading the chapter again, I finally found why you people hold them in such high esteem. But I noted a difference between them ('fauna') and the Ents ('flora'). The Ents had a direct participation in the War by attacking Isengard, while the Wild Men refused to do any such thing. Is this due to a certain degree of bitterness they felt towards the Men? (I would say that this same feeling of bitterness had a part in driving the Ents to fight Saruman.) Or does it have something to do with the nature of their people?

Again, the Wild Men are also a bit reminiscent of the Dead. It was Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor, who summoned the Dead - who themselves were once Men, but now bereft of restful peace and dignity. They were recalled on oath, and unless they fulfill it the peace they desire would continually elude them, which is possibly why they finally came when Aragorn summoned them.

The Wild Men, on the other hand, were under no oath; in a sense, they are a free people, having no imposed ties with anyone else. How they came to meet with Theoden and the Rohirrim I haven't found in the book, but they seem to be creatures feared yet hunted. The Rohirrim asked for their help, which they have freely given (though not in the way the Horsemen requested), and were willing to be killed if they failed. (Does this constitute an oath?) They expressed intense hatred towards Orcs, a reason for them to agree to help. But in one sense they also have this similarity with the Dead:

'Then you will kill gorgûn and drive away bad dark with bright iron, and Wild Men can go back to sleep in the wild woods.' (Ghân-buri-Ghân) (italics mine)

Finally, this chapter (in some way) foretells the manner of Sauron's downfall:

'Even in this gloom hope gleams again. Our Enemy's devices oft serve us in his despite. The accursed darkness itself has been a cloak to us.' (Éomer)

And later:

But the mind and will of the Black Captain were bent wholly on the falling city, and as yet no tidings came to him warning that his designs held any flaw.

Like unto the master is the servant, eh? (Many thanks to Nilp for that. )

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

The Rohirrim asked for their help, which they have freely given (though not in the way the Horsemen requested), and were willing to be killed if they failed.

This is not my reading of the situation. If we look at what Ghan-buri-ghan actually says:

'Dead men are not friends to living men, and give them no gifts,' said the Wild Man. 'But if you live after the Darkness, then leave Wild Men alone in the woods and do not hunt them like beasts any more. Ghan-buri-Ghan will not lead you into trap. He will go himself with father of Horse-men, and if he leads you wrong, you will kill him.'

what comes across is that the Wild Men are not giving their help freely, but rather because they've been hunted by the Rohirrim (possibly, for all we know, to the point of near extinction). When Ghan says 'if he leads you wrong, you will kill him.' I don't think he's freely offering his life as a pledge of his faithfulness, but simply stating a fact, based on his experience of the Rohirrim he & his people have encountered. He's saying 'I know you bloodthirsty horselords, you killers of my kin. If you hunt & kill us for no reason at the best of times, then I know for certain that if I mislead you now you'll kill me. I'll help you but please stop killing us.'

Basically, he's smart enough to know that there's no hope of survival if the orcs win, & little more if the Rohirrim win, but he's doing what he can for his people.

[Lhunardawen]

But what of Théoden's response, "So be it!"?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lhunardawen

But what of Théoden's response, "So be it!"?

I don't think he & Ghan were reading from the same hymn sheet. Or maybe Theoden was just being condescending - I don't know. What's interesting to me about this 'relationship' is that the Rohirrim saw the inhabitants of the Druadan forest as being only useful for hunting until they were in trouble & needed something from them. At that point they were willing to make use of them. I'd probably take Theoden's words as accepting Ghan's help & agreeing that he's stop his people hunting the Wild Men. Notice he doesn't deny Ghan's statement that the Rohirrim had hunted the Wild Men. Its as if he's saying 'I realise now that you people have your uses, so we'll keep you around.'

This is a subject that I haven't seen discussed much. The tendency is to see the Rohirrim in a heroic light, but Tolkien clearly states that they had hunted the Wild Men - he didn't have to put that in. Taking into account the Rohirrim's approach to the Dunlendings what we see is perhaps something 'darker' in their attitude to the native inhabitants of their land - maybe 'ethnic cleansing' wouldn't be too extreme a label to put on it. I've certainly seen that accusation levelled at the incoming Anglo-Saxons regarding their behaviour to the native Britons they encountered when they came to Britain - notably in Peter Beresford-Ellis's book 'Celt & Saxon'.

In their own way they are as insular & contemptuous of other peoples as the Gondorians. Tolkien doesn't hide this fact, or try & pretend that all the enemies of Sauron are a bunch of goody-goodies. Peoples & races live insular lives in closed off communities & this manifests in at best suspicion, through contempt & hatred to, at worst, ethnic cleansing & genocide. True friendship between members of different races is rare. The Gimli-Legolas friendship is unique & every alliance between different races is held up by Tolkien as unusual & worthy of special comment. Read in the light of the Silmarillion the 'Fellowship of the Ring' is truly an amazing thing - its far from the norm in Middle-earth to see members of diverse races coming together in that way - & that's only because of the extremity the West finds itself in.....

[Bêthberry]

I've been thinking of a point for some time and it appears that this is the right place to offer it for discussion. It really concerns these two chapters, five and six, of Book III, as well as the early sections on The Shire.

I would agree with davem [! ] that there are very sombre implications to the discussion between Theoden and Ghân-buri-Ghân that certainly recall a terrible and long history of 'ethnic cleansing.' This is very much a 'real politik' discussion of alliance in hard times against a common foe rather than any kind of rapproachment between the two races. But I will leave this point for my main, rambling, thoughts.

Given the association (application?) between the Rohirrim and the ancient Anglo-Saxons, it appears that Tolkien 'split up' his depictions of the English nation into two groups of peoples in Middle-earth: the industrious, largely-peaceful, somewhat sweet and very endearing Hobbits, and the stern, fierce tribe of the warrior code, the Rohirrim. To the Rohirrim, as to the other groups of the race of "Men" Tolkien gives the terrible battle frenzies, the glorification and justification of war, the militaristic and authoritarian social organisations, the insularity which can lead to genocide. We are told through suggestions and matter of fact statements that the hobbits have had troubled times in the past (the Bonfire Glade, the Hedge between Bucklebury and the Old Forest, some distrust amongst the Stoors, Fallohides, and Harfoots), but the eloquence of words, the sweet sweeping along of the reader in the enchantment of the description and narrative is not given to this aspect of hobbit history.

Why not?

It is almost as if Tolkien provided an 'idealised' version of the English nation but to do so he had to acknowledge the very much more terrible aspects of it in another form. To the race of men who are outside The Shire, those 'continental' tribes who foment so much of the violence in Middle earth, he gives the terrible destructive aspects of European history, invasion, conquest, genocide. (He omits slavery, I think, for the good side and assigns that to Mordor and Sauron.) It is true that Tolkien uses hobbits to develope the trope of the Ring (Bilbo, Gollem/Smeagol, Frodo) but perhaps he can do that mainly because he creates hobbits in the first place as so innocent? (Another way of viewing this is to see the heroic ideal of the English nation coming to the salvation of all men, but this is a different discussion.)

Anyhow, I find it interesting that Tolkien splits up his depiction of the English into essentially two different peoples, a shadow and an idealised version.

Any thoughts?

[davem]

Originally Posted by bb

To the Rohirrim, as to the other groups of the race of "Men" Tolkien gives the terrible battle frenzies, the glorification and justification of war, the militaristic and authoritarian social organisations, the insularity which can lead to genocide

In an article in the lat,est Amon Hen (The Modern Rohirrim by Jason Finch) There's a discussion on the way the Anglo Saxons were percieved at the time Tolkien wrote LotR. He writes:

When JRRT wrote LotR the Anglo-Saxons were effectively an unknown people, archaologically speaking. In the late 1940's over 1,100 A-S cemetaries were known of & had been excavated to varying degrees against less than ten excavated settlements. Burials can reveal a lot about how people died & how the living treated the dead, as well as revealing some indications about how life was lived, but this bias in the evidence would have given an incomplete picture, not helped by other biases...

It was believed that A-S England had been a largely empty land, with a small population & was still largely covered with woods...

There were some towns, such as London, but the picture was for the most part of an England of simple farmers & small settlements surrounded by forexts & with few or no comforts, ruled by warlike barbaric illiterate lords, just looking after the land until the Normans turned up & defeated them in five minutes...

In short, the image of the Anglo-Saxons Tolkien had in mind was very similar to the one he presents in LotR. But Finch goes on to point out that:

Considerable evidence has been found for large scale A-S manufacturing of pottery, jewellery, & metalworking at a number of towns...

Far from being an illiterate society it appears that later A-S England was as literate as any in Europe. In fact this level of literacy meant England was the most centralised & organised nation of its time, with what can only be described as a proto-civil service in existence.

Now, it will be argued that the period of Anglo-Saxon England which Tolkien was basing his Rohirric culture on was earlier than that just prior to the Norman Conquest, but the point is, he did not know much about the day to day life of the A-S peoples. His knowledge would have been drawn from the poems (Beowulf, Finnsburg, The Wanderer, The Seafarer, Maldon, etc. in conjuntion with the limited knowledge gained from graves So, in effect, he used the 'idealised' A-S world of heroic myth ('confirmed' by the swords, daggers, etc found in the graves), to create the Rohirrim.

The Rohirrim are his 'fantasy' Anglo-Saxons, 'idealised' in one sense into a warrior elite, but certainly not 'idealised' in the moral sense. So, as Bb says, it seems that Tolkien has 'split' the 'English' into two, the peaceful, bucolic world of the Shire is one, the illiterate warrior culture of Rohan is the other. What both groups share, however, is mistrust of the 'outsider' - even, in the case of the Hobbits, of some of their fellow 'insiders' ('They're queer folk in Buckland.')

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

What both groups share, however, is mistrust of the 'outsider' - even, in the case of the Hobbits, of some of their fellow 'insiders' ('They're queer folk in Buckland.')

Yes, you are right. I think we went into the insularity of the Hobbits in some detail when we discussed the early Hobbit chapters here on the CxC forum.

Originally Posted by davem

Now, it will be argued that the period of Anglo-Saxon England which Tolkien was basing his Rohirric culture on was earlier than that just prior to the Norman Conquest, but the point is, he did not know much about the day to day life of the A-S peoples. His knowledge would have been drawn from the poems (Beowulf, Finnsburg, The Wanderer, The Seafarer, Maldon, etc. in conjuntion with the limited knowledge gained from graves So, in effect, he used the 'idealised' A-S world of heroic myth ('confirmed' by the swords, daggers, etc found in the graves), to create the Rohirrim.

The Rohirrim are his 'fantasy' Anglo-Saxons, 'idealised' in one sense into a warrior elite, but certainly not 'idealised' in the moral sense

Well, I'm not sure his depiction of the Rohirrim is limited simply to the Anglo-Saxons, nor to their literature alone. The dating of, say, Beowulf is a notoriously debatable point among OE scholars--ranging over at least two hundred years, if not five hundred--so I'm not sure how closely we can pin down Tolkien's view to a historical sense of the period.

Nor would Tolkien have been limited merely to the battle poems, as the OE corpus includes a fair number of religious poems, poems of exile and longing, riddles, legal papers, to say nothing of Alfred's Doomsday entries. I think the warrior aspect of the Rohirrim owes as much to other warrior epics as to the Old English poems alone. And I wouldn't want to ignore the influence of WWI, as you so ably argued in your thread about that recent bio on Tolkien.

But I think your earlier post hit something important. There are aspects to the Rohirrim which don't derive from the Anglo Saxon period per se or the warrior epics of other nations, however much the militarism of the period shows in LotR. And that is the Woses and Ghân-buri-Ghân. I cannot recall anything like it in the OE literature I have read, although there is much about foreigners, foes, enemies and fearful monsters.

It is a remarkably complex depiction. It seemingly begins with the derisive attitude towards those who don't speak well a foreign language--the 'uncouth' remark--and extensive descriptions of the ugliness of the man--ugliness meaning largely 'not like the tall, fair-haired Rohirrim and Gondorians'. But Ghân-buri-Ghân shows himself a very apt diplomat, very astute at handling this kind of conversation. The reference to hunting his people is particularly telling I think in terms of Tolkien's inclusion not of an Anglo-Saxon feeling towards others but a modern interpretation.

I guess what I am trying to say is that, at the beginning of the interview I think the narrator's voice implies a Rohirrim attitude towards the Wild People, one of thinly veiled disgust or dislike, as if they aren't truly 'people'. But by the end of the passage I think the perspective has shifted to create a more sympathetic attitude towards Ghân. Of course, I could be all wet and wrong, but I sense that Tolkien was including here his thoughts about European attitudes towards 'the dark continent'. Or the Australian attitude towards the Aboriginal tribes there. Or the Native peoples--First Nations--in North America.

So, I wouldn't say the depiction of the Rohirrim is 'idealised' even by epic proportions. I think it represents in part a logical extension of some of the qualities in the earlier heroic literatures. It is a heavily nuanced depiction.