Power to the People

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

With Tolkien being a Catholic, he would have known that in terms of being one of the 'establishment', he would still have been something of an outsider; when he went to Oxford it was not all that long after the requirement that students be CofE was abolished - 1871. I wonder how he felt about the link between church and state, and if he experienced any sense of being an 'outsider'? I cannot imagine that he would have approved of a theocracy?

I can't either. And I believe that there is an undercurrent of 'outsiderness' as described in Carpenter's biography. If everybody else is CofE, and you're Catholic, both sides of the difference are bound to be aware of it. This does seem to come through in terms of Tolkien's protagonists, too! Bilbo and Frodo were both considered to be 'eccentric', which means of course "outside the circle". So was Aragorn, for that matter! You write what you know.

[Aiwendil]

Lalwende wrote:

Aragorn does have something which seems to be a 'divine right', but how can we call it that if there is no religion? I think he has something which is more of a 'blood right' to be King.

There is no religion, but there are divinities. Aragorn's right to the kingship is ultimately derived from the right of kingship given to Elros by the Valar. And it is noteworthy that this right is renewed by the presence of Gandalf - an emissary of the Valar - at Aragorn's coronation; indeed it is Gandalf who literally crowns him.

So, while I agree that one can hardly have a theocracy without an established
(organized) religion, I would say that Aragorn's right is properly called a divine right.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

while I agree that one can hardly have a theocracy without an established (organized) religion, I would say that Aragorn's right is properly called a divine right.

Good point.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by lmp

Indubitably! But to attempt to say what Tolkien's and Lewis's politics were by reading LotR and the Narnia Chronicles is not the same thing.

Erm, I do apologise if my first post was unclear--and I suppose my final question can be construed personally--but I had thought I had framed the question in terms of Tolkien's and Lewis' works--a word I used several times. And I provided examples from the texts, rather than from the Letters. And the original comment about Lewis was directed to the story itself. And, and, well, the texts do present a political stance. It was that stance I was interested in exploring.

Originally Posted by Lal

I wouldn't go so far as to call the UK a theocracy! That's a term I'd associate more with Iran, and as I've heard before, possibly with the Republic and the authority of the Jedi in Star Wars!

Israel also comes to mind, but I suppose that is a contested issue. However, as I suggested to lmp, my interest lies in the attitude towards power and authority which the texts portray, rather than the author's personal beliefs, which are more speculative fodder for discussion.

I wonder if the difference perceived between the texts of Tolkien and Lewis might pertain to the different stances which the texts display towards allegory and not just audience, as tgwbs suggests.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...my interest lies in the attitude towards power and authority which the texts portray, rather than the author's personal beliefs, which are more speculative fodder for discussion.

Thanks much for the clarification. I guess I needed it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder if the difference perceived between the texts of Tolkien and Lewis might pertain to the different stances which the texts display towards allegory and not just audience, as tgwbs suggests.

That's what I was getting at with this in answer to

Originally Posted by you

Tolkien, with his profound Catholic faith, producing a world full of change and even insisting upon the recognition of that change. Flux rather than finality. How does he do that?

...

Originally Posted by me

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

I suppose I meant "allegory" instead of 'fairy tale'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by lmp

...

Well, I have to say that I think there is an interesting difference between Catholic aesthetics and protestant aesthetics. And I wonder if this difference is borne out in the art of the two men. Which, I quickly state, to me is not the same thing as sussing out their personal beliefs.

Originally Posted by lmp

By mirroring reality well, as opposed to writing more of a fairy tale (LWW)? I'm brought back to the 'truism' that Tolkien is writing about death whereas Lewis is writing about a chosen nation, as it were.

You know, one of these days I am going to accidentally call you imp.

The whole issue of applying "divine kingship" to feudal or renaissance Europe is, to me, a fascinating story of the appropriation of cultural values to very different social contexts. Nomadic desert tribes versus English barons. It seems to me that death is a much more of hobbits, elves, dwarves and men. Aslan might give "sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve" dominion over the other races, but Tolkien, I think, might have allowed Mr. Tumnus a greater power over his own fate. Therein I think lies what to me might be the ultimate issue here. Is the difference between Tolkien's work and Lewis' work one of artistic hierarchy or competence?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

...but Tolkien, I think, might have allowed Mr. Tumnus a greater power over his own fate. Therein I think lies what to me might be the ultimate issue here. Is the difference between Tolkien's work and Lewis' work one of artistic hierarchy or competence?

Allow me to distract (or, perhaps, move forward) from the main discussion, since this little quote from your last post, Bêthberry, seems very interesting to me, in the light of the currently active thread regarding "That Which is Fate to All Things Else".

Here is another place where things differ. Although we have prophecies in Narnia, we never have FATE, and even these prophecies are not, apparently, infalliable, since there is a very grave fear in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that the White Witch will be able to prevent the prophecies from becoming true.

In Middle-Earth, on the other hand, we have very clear statements regarding the presence of Fate. Now, it is true that there is very great debate as to the interaction of this Fate with Free Will (for that, I direct you to the aforementioned and other various threads), but that Fate exists in Middle-Earth is taken as a given by pretty much everyone here.

As I've noted, though, there is no such Fate in Narnia. For which reason I find your statement that Tolkien would have allowed Mr. Tumnus greater control over his own destiny to be highly interesting. If I may imagine Gandalf talking to Lucy, I can imagine him saying something like this:

Gandalf: "You were meant to come into Narnia, and Mr. Tumnus was meant to meet you."

But, as presented in the Chronicles, Mr. Tumnus isn't so much MEANT to meet Lucy as he is simply the first Narnian to do so.

Now, I'm not sure if I know where I'm going with all this. One could easily make a case that Narnia is very much a world where Fate figures in, I do not deny that. But the contrast between Tolkien's outright declaration of Fate as contrasted by Lewis' avoidance of any such statement is interesting...