Beorhtnoth at Maldon ~ Gandalf at Khazaddûm

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What might have happened if Gandalf had fled instead?

They would not have made it, because it is Gandalf who breaks the bridge. Had he fled, the Balrog would have crossed the bridge and destroyed all nine of them before they could get near the exit.

Here are Tolkien's words about Beorhtnoth, from his commentary on Homecoming:

[The] element of pride, in the form of the desire for honour and glory, in life and after death, tends to grow, to become a chief motive, driving a man beyond the bleak heroic necessity to excess --- to chivalry [italics mine]. "Excess" certainly, even if it be approved by contemporary opinion, when it not only goes beyond need and duty, but interferes with it. .... Beorhthnoth was chivalrous rather than strictly heroic. Honour was in itself a motive, and he sought it at the risk of placing his heorðwerod, all the men most dear to him, in a truly heroic situation, which they could redeem only by death. Mangnificent perhaps, but certainly wrong. Too foolish to be heroic. And the folly Beorhthnoth at any rate could not wholly be redeemed by death.

So Tolkien has distinguished between heroism and chivalry, such that heroism is the good of loyalty to the death whereas chivalry is the good of loyalty to the death married to foolish pride; for chivalry places honour above wisdom.

Agree? Disagree?

Is there any character in Tolkien's writings who opts for chivarly instead of heroism? If so, what does it tell the reader?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Tolkien did clarify his position in the essay ofermod, which he appended to The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth in my opinion to add the bare minimum of academic discussion required to justify its presence in a scholarly journal. There he defines quite clearly what he means by 'courage' and 'chivalry', and the important distinction between them.

To my mind, what Tolkien was saying throughout the piece was that courage is shown in doing what must be done, regardless the risks involved. Chivalry is that virtue taken to extremes: giving a disarmed enemy back his weapons so that he can fight on; allowing a surprised enemy to take up their battle formations. Chivalry is needlessly increasing the risks for the sake of personal reputation; courage is accepting the risks that exist and doing one's job regardless.

Joy started a good thread on Byrhtnoth, Maldon and Tolkien in which we talked about just these issues. I think I concluded that Byrhtnoth, despite its mediaeval pretensions, has entirely twentieth-century concerns.

[Ghazi]

Two things come to mind:

For chivalrous reasons The Valar took Melkor prisoner and placed him in the Halls of Mandos after the awakening of the Elves, instead of thrusting him into the Void.

For reasons of pride Ar-Pharazon took Sauron as a hostage back to Westernesse.

[littlemanpoet]

Interesting observations, Ghazi.

Didn't Sauron portray himself as defeated when he really was not? Or was he actually defeated by Ar Pharazon? Either way, he played Ar Phar. However, I'm not sure Pharazon was so much chivalrous as showing off his prize.

As for the Valar, wow. I'll have to read that over again to see if seemed like chivalry to me. My sense is that it was punishment after a crime, but with leniency - therefore mercy; however, I'm not sure that excludes the connotations of chivalry.

Interesting!

[Ghazi]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Interesting observations, Ghazi.
As for the Valar, wow. I'll have to read that over again to see if seemed like chivalry to me. My sense is that it was punishment after a crime, but with leniency - therefore mercy; however, I'm not sure that excludes the connotations of chivalry.

You may be right. As I think about it now, I have a hard time chalking that one up to chivalry. I'll read about that one too.