Nobility in the books

[Selmo]

Originally Posted by Dûrbelethwen

I noticed it seemed like every major character in Professor Tolkien's books about Middle Earth are of the nobility with the exception of Sam.

To fit into Tolkien's view of an ideal world, Sam is elevated to the Nobility. He becomes an important figure in The Shire, taking a leading role in the reconstruction and then as Mayor, re-elected many times. He is appointed as a King's Counsellor of The Northern Kingdom, sitting as an equal with other Lords of Arnor. Sam's eldest daughter becomes P.A. to the Queen of Gondor and Arnor, an honour only granted to families of the highest rank. Other sons and daughters marry into Hobbit aristocracy.

Sam starts out as the working-class hero but he's not allowed to remain so.
.

[tom bombariffic]

Rhod,

Tolkien's wish to create a mythology for England is asserted in Michael White's biography of him - I believe it is in a direct quote from Tolkien but I honestly can't remember, it's a while since I read it, so to be fair it could be the biographer's interpretation.

Frankly I hadn't really doubted the truth of it, to me it seems fairly clear that he is writing in the style of folklore, and Lord of the Rings is in an undeniably British setting.

I suppose "one of his aims" was a fairly flippant comment to make; like I said, I was in a hurry. But I think it's clear that he wrote deliberately in the style of folklore, and so much of the language and content mirrors the Norse mythology that he taught at Oxford, that he's obviously creating a parallel to a certain extent.

bombariffic

[Rhod the Red]

I agree he was writing in the style of folklore. But I have doubt he wrote the book to be a mythology for Britain. I have not seen any quote yet to make me beleive so.

At the moment I will merely assume he wrote it as a form of intellectual self-satisfaction. Which is usually the core reason a writer writes, among others.

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

I agree he was writing in the style of folklore. But I have doubt he wrote the book to be a mythology for Britain. I have not seen any quote yet to make me beleive so.

In a letter to a reader in 1956:

Having set myself a task, the arrogance of which I fully recognized and trembled at: being precisely to restore to the English an epic tradition and present them with a mythology of their own: it is a wonderful thing to be told that I have succeeded, at least with those who have still the undarkened heart and mind.

And to W.H. Auden during the same year:

I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still in use) of midden-erd > middel-erd, an ancient name for the oikoumenē, the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell). The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time.

A little more as to why:

Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.

[Rhod the Red]

Thank you Legolas. Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me?

[tom bombariffic]

Thanks legolas, the first was the exact quote I had been thinking of. Hats off to you, sir!

And Rhod,

Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me?

Personally I dont think anyone will agree with you that Elessar was a tryrant, because tyranny denotes cruelty and oppression. Nowadays we have a tendency to view any individual ruler as having too much power, but in Tolkien's time there wasn't such opposition to royalty, and even he was looking back to a time when kings and lords were celebrated, as various people have argued above.

bombariffic

[Legolas]

I think Rhod is calling Aragorn a tyrant in the most neutral, factual sense.

By tyrant, I do not think that negative connotations are intended. A tyrant is "an absolute ruler who governs without restrictions" (www.dictionary.com); not always an oppressive dictator, one who abuses power and treats others with cruelty.

[Anguirel]

Two points:

Rhod, you criticise Tolkien for defending "elitism" and "feudalism".

First, it should be remembered that these are very different things. "Elitism" means the preeminence of a meritocratic oligarchy; people chosen to oversee the fields they're best at. It's actually a pretty sensible and crucial principle, despite being bad-mouthed by socialists who haven't succeeded in achieving anything better. But I digress.

And of course, we all know about feudalism, cap-doffing, God bless you your honour, vassalage type of stuff. In my view, things can get a lot worse than feudalism run under just rulers. And you have to remember that it was essentially a choice for Middle-earth between just feudalism under Aragorn and arbitrary despotism under Sauron. There wasn't, thank goodness, a "democratic" alternative, though I'm sure Sauron was on the point of devising one...

My second point-you're forgetting, in terms of commoner heroes, the soldier Beregond. Remember that moment when Pippin assumes he's a captain and Beregond laughs?

[Lalaith]

In the tradition within which Tolkien was working - folklore, legend, ballad, myth, whatever - the thing to remember is everyone's a lord or king, or becomes one. It's not elitist if everybody does it....Yes, sometimes the hero/ine starts off in a humble position, but it always ends up with "unto half my kingdom" doesn't it...

(And in reality these nobles and "kings" of fairytale and folklore were often little more than well-to-do farmers or tribal chiefs. Their lifestyles would have been extremely rustic by our own standards.)

[JennyHallu]

A couple comments:

1) The prevalence of so many 'noble' characters may be just as much to emphasize the continuity of the story. LotR is not a stand alone tale, it is but a very long and elaborate chapter in a much greater epic, the HoME. This story spans so many generations, the nobility and bloodlines help us to see that what we do has an effect on our children, and their children, and so on, and reinforces Tolkien's belief in the power of history, and of knowing history.

2) Were Merry and Pippin really 'noble', in the strictest sense of the word? There is no real evidence that the Master and the Took are true hereditary titles, based on the law of primogeniture. We do not know that they took these titles because they were due them, or because they proved their worth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

In my view, things can get a lot worse than feudalism run under just rulers.

This seems a rather pertinent point. In the world of Middle-earth, the rulers of the Free Peoples are generally portrayed, and must therefore be taken, as just rulers. Where they are not portrayed as worthy rulers (for example, Thedoen at first and Denethor towards the end), it is the result of malign influence.

[Rhod the Red]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Two points:

Rhod, you criticise Tolkien for defending "elitism" and "feudalism".

First, it should be remembered that these are very different things. "Elitism" means the preeminence of a meritocratic oligarchy; people chosen to oversee the fields they're best at. It's actually a pretty sensible and crucial principle, despite being bad-mouthed by socialists who haven't succeeded in achieving anything better. But I digress.

And of course, we all know about feudalism, cap-doffing, God bless you your honour, vassalage type of stuff. In my view, things can get a lot worse than feudalism run under just rulers. And you have to remember that it was essentially a choice for Middle-earth between just feudalism under Aragorn and arbitrary despotism under Sauron. There wasn't, thank goodness, a "democratic" alternative, though I'm sure Sauron was on the point of devising one...

My second point-you're forgetting, in terms of commoner heroes, the soldier Beregond. Remember that moment when Pippin assumes he's a captain and Beregond laughs?

Elitism: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.(dictionary.com)

I didn't say he defended elitism, but pointed out the story features it.

Those two choices left out the anarchist societes of The Shire and Bree! So you're not being truthfull.

[Anguirel]

I think you'll find those radical Communists in Bree and the Shire tended to pay their taxes to Elessar, King of Arnor on time in the Fourth Age...there seems no record of them seizing Arnor while singing the Marseillaise and electing Sam Gamgee President...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I think portraying the western polities as
"absolutist" monarchies goes too far. there
were at a minimum councils which the
kings found it necessary to consult and seek
their advice, with apparently an influence at least
that of the nobility in post-1066 England (not sure
of Anglo-Saxon politics). And if the peoples in
Northwestern middle-earth were "free" how could
they be ruled by absolutist leaders? + what is to be
made by the (apparently) pro forma acclamation of
Aragorn? It would seem to include an at least inferred
right of all the people, not only the nobility, to consent
to be the governed. And if in the course of human events
the king became abusive of their rights to (say) life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness wouldn't it be their
right to dissolve the political bands which connected them.....hmm.



Also, while Beorn's descendants were leaders were
they nobility, or chosen by the woodsmen?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

Also, while Beorn's descendants were leaders were
they nobility, or chosen by the woodsmen?

That is surely just the law of the jungle? When someone's Rottweiler went off with one of my hit out tennis balls, my attitude was - if the Rottie wants the ball, I'm not arguing. I am fairly sure that the woodsmen would have felt it was a good idea to let the guy who can change into a massive, dangerous bear lead if he wanted to.