"Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages"

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

I also agree that the idea that Sauron recieving reports or issuing an order by an Orc is absurd. Gorbag describes dealing with a Nazgûl as a harrowing experience; Sauron's own presence would probably have reduced any mere Orc to a gibbering wreck.

Orcs were his primary servants, though. They would have had to have been permitted in his presence. Not vast crowds of them, of course, but leaders would almost certainly have had to have some kind of interaction with him. Also note that Shagrat and Gorbag discussed the possibility of Sauron coming to visit them in person. Grishnákh, to name another example, seems to be familiar with several matters of extreme sensitivity to Sauron. Grishnákh might have been present at Gollum's torture, where we know Sauron was present.

[Zigûr]

Thanks for everyone's thoughts so far. When I get a chance I'll dig up some more interesting bits and pieces.

While I have the opportunity, however, I should comment on this:

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

The line verbatim reads "Shagrat brings the Mithril Coat and other spoils to Barad-dûr, but is slain by Sauron."

Thanks William Cloud Hicklin. One shudders to think what this slaying involved, especially if Sauron at the end of the Third Age was possessed again of the burning skin he had at the end of the Second. He was also "of more than human stature, but not gigantic." I can picture this terrible figure, perhaps nine or ten feet tall and burning with heat, smashing Shagrat aside with a single monstrous backhanded blow.

It's worth wondering whether this is a more modern or medieval conceit, in which attracting the ire of a tyrant was almost certainly a death sentence. While Orcs may have been in Sauron's presence - they clearly were when he led his own armies during the Second Age - I struggle to imagine him permitting an Orc to converse with him except in very specific circumstances.

Sauron as a kind of illegitimate aristocrat is interesting, because like many modern tyrants he was no king but acted and was treated like one - yet at the same time he was a very "great person" in his own way; but among his own people, while somewhat high of stature, he was not of the highest rank (even among the Maiar alone, it would seem).

EDIT: A couple of other thoughts occur: population decline might be compared to a medieval situation, that caused by the devastating Mongol invasions of Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in the 13th Century, which perhaps (given their predilection for mounted soldiery) have some points of comparison with the Easterlings and their repeated invasions of western Middle-earth. Of course in Professor Tolkien's fiction, there is an immortal manipulator behind the scenes, which greatly extends things. The apparent population decline of Gondor, however, might also to some extent be a prediction of a modern scenario in which a relatively high quality of life (which Gondor appears to have had) can have extremely variable effects on birthrate and population growth - note that as many modern Western societies rely on immigration to support population growth and age, it was the mingling of the Men of Gondor with Middle Men that to an extent enabled their survival into the end of the Third Age (despite ugly racially-motivated resistance to this, as seen in the Kin-Strife, obviously an incisive narrative expression on Professor Tolkien's part with immense relevance to his context and beyond).

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Orcs were his primary servants, though. They would have had to have been permitted in his presence. Not vast crowds of them, of course, but leaders would almost certainly have had to have some kind of interaction with him. Also note that Shagrat and Gorbag discussed the possibility of Sauron coming to visit them in person. Grishnákh, to name another example, seems to be familiar with several matters of extreme sensitivity to Sauron. Grishnákh might have been present at Gollum's torture, where we know Sauron was present.

All good points which I overlooked. There were, of course, orcs and Orcs - Snagas, Uruks and Boldogs, some strong enough to stand in Sauron's presence, others maybe not so.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I can picture this terrible figure, perhaps nine or ten feet tall and burning with heat, smashing Shagrat aside with a single monstrous backhanded blow.

Or with a purely mental blast of wrath communicated through flaming eyes - staring him to death. That would be how I'd picture it.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Sauron as a kind of illegitimate aristocrat is interesting, because like many modern tyrants he was no king but acted and was treated like one - yet at the same time he was a very "great person" in his own way; but among his own people, while somewhat high of stature, he was not of the highest rank (even among the Maiar alone, it would seem).

By the standard of his peers Sauron was an impostor, as there was but one rightful king among the Ainur - Manwë, the Elder King under Ilúvatar. But by his mortal subjects he was (and aspired to be) regarded as far more than a king - a god, or god-king. Theocracy as a form of government isn't particularly medieval but has occurred throughout history from antiquity even to the modern Middle East, and watching news of the murdering hordes of Daesh it's hard not to feel reminded of Orcs propagating Sauron-worship.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

By the standard of his peers Sauron was an impostor, as there was but one rightful king among the Ainur - Manwë, the Elder King under Ilúvatar. But by his mortal subjects he was (and aspired to be) regarded as far more than a king - a god, or god-king. Theocracy as a form of government isn't particularly medieval but has occurred throughout history from antiquity even to the modern Middle East, and watching news of the murdering hordes of Daesh it's hard not to feel reminded of Orcs propagating Sauron-worship.

It might be worthwhile to consider a "modern" movement in which the leader himself was effectively the object of worship, however. The idea of a "Cult of Personality" seems to reflect Sauron's position in some respects, although that in itself is hardly a purely modern concept, given that it was practiced long before the time of the men to whom these days it seems to mostly be attributed, such as Stalin.

In Letter 183 Professor Tolkien compares the position of the Free Peoples of Middle-earth to that of "the Cause of those who oppose now the State-God and Marshal This or That as its High Priest." This seems to be tied to his abhorrence of the negation of free will, as he argues that those who oppose the negation of free will are always in a morally superior position to those who do the negating, even if they use extreme methods to do it: "even if in desperation 'the West' had bred or hired hordes of ores and had cruelly ravaged the lands of other Men as allies of Sauron, or merely to prevent them from aiding him, their Cause would have remained indefeasibly right."

This is stated in contrast to Sauron and his desire to be a God-King. Thus in this instance Professor Tolkien fairly closely compares Sauron's God-Kingship to "the State-God and Marshal This or That as its High Priest", which seems to particularly evoke twentieth century totalitarianism. In much the same way, in Númenor, Sauron was "High Priest" of (the phantom of) Melkor, the religious threat which allowed him to wield absolute power. Similarly in twentieth-century totalitarian states the dictator was generally held to rule in the cause of some ideology or other which was a veneer for tyranny by demanding absolute devotion from all those below the tyrant.

Yet the same could arguably be said of other historical situations, like the Roman Empire at various points and under various rulers.

One could also consider how the worship of Sauron as a god seems to have been propagated among the Men whom he subjugated and not among the Orcs and other creatures which formed the bulk of his personal subjects in his own realms, and seem to have a more varied opinion of him: he is referred to simply as "Him" and as "the Eye" in Shagrat and Gorbag's conversation, but not with reverence. Grishnákh's "painful" admiration of the Nazgûl evokes something more religious, arguably, but still not wholly reverent: "they're the apple of the Great Eye". Grishnákh also seems to be some kind of informant, to the Nazgûl or some other form of "internal security" in Sauron's realm: "I may have to report that."

None of these things are particularly specifically modern, but it's difficult to ignore the resonance they have in Professor Tolkien's context in particular.

Interestingly enough, Shagrat's orders were that "the prisoner is to be kept safe and intact, under pain of death for every member of the guard, until He sends or comes Himself." Thus by going to the Dark Tower as he did, he was signing his own death warrant. This also suggests that these were seemingly personal orders given by Sauron to the watchtowers concerning any prisoners taken entering Mordor, which would explain why Sauron saw fit to dispose of Shagrat himself.

It's worth noting that critics have often attributed a technological element distinguishing twentieth century (and onwards) totalitarianism from other forms of tyranny, but it's similarly worth observing that despite lacking "twentieth century technology" Sauron still has "the machine" on his side: "all use of external plans or devices (apparatus) instead of development of the inherent inner powers or talents — or even the use of these talents with the corrupted motive of dominating: bulldozing the real world, or coercing other wills." (Letter 131) Sauron's "magic" (Ainu power used for evil purposes) is his technology: "The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised."

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

EDIT: A couple of other thoughts occur: population decline might be compared to a medieval situation, that caused by the devastating Mongol invasions of Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe in the 13th Century, which perhaps (given their predilection for mounted soldiery) have some points of comparison with the Easterlings and their repeated invasions of western Middle-earth. Of course in Professor Tolkien's fiction, there is an immortal manipulator behind the scenes, which greatly extends things. The apparent population decline of Gondor, however, might also to some extent be a prediction of a modern scenario in which a relatively high quality of life (which Gondor appears to have had) can have extremely variable effects on birthrate and population growth - note that as many modern Western societies rely on immigration to support population growth and age, it was the mingling of the Men of Gondor with Middle Men that to an extent enabled their survival into the end of the Third Age (despite ugly racially-motivated resistance to this, as seen in the Kin-Strife, obviously an incisive narrative expression on Professor Tolkien's part with immense relevance to his context and beyond).

These are very good points.

I had not thought before about the potential parallel between Central Asia post-Mongols, which had achieved a high level of cultural development before the Mongols, and the depopulated state of Middle earth.

They were very similar in the sense of both being composed of vast stretches of wilderness with only a few isolated surviving population centers.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

"The Machine is our more obvious modern form though more closely related to Magic than is usually recognised."

I doubt Tolkien would think highly of the internet...

[Zigûr]

Elmo posted this in the "Who are the 'wild men'?" thread.

Originally Posted by Elmo

The Dunlendings were the indigenous population of the area and the rightful owners of Calenardhon, they were there long before the Numenorians fell out of the sea onto the land. The Rohirrim were a colonial, interloping, land thieving population 'planted' by Gondor on Dunlending territory for military reasons, similar to what the British Empire did in various times and places in history. The Dunlendings were definitely right to be a bit annoyed about this and can hardly be blamed for their hatred of the horse folk, especially as countless of them were cruelly slain by the Rohan's kings like Helm Hammerhand who brutally murdered many of them like Freca.

This reminded me of another remark from Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages:

In the essay "Fear of Difference, Fear of Death: The Sigelwara, Tolkien's Swertings and Racial Difference", Brian McFadden states that "Tolkien was a human being and would have admitted himself to be fallible; his society, also, had not yet become as self-aware or as self-critical with respect to colonialism and racism as it is today. However, one can perceive an awareness of the artificiality of dividing humans into races in Tolkien's work."

This perhaps raises another point for me, as I stated in my original post, that a lot of critical material is "typically heavily The Lord of the Rings-centric". A study of The Silmarillion, the narrative of "Tal-Elmar" published in The Peoples of Middle-earth, The Lost Road and other narratives would open up more definite angles for considering colonial and postcolonial discourse in relation to Professor Tolkien's work. I particularly think that the image of the Númenóreans as island-based seafaring conquerors with increasingly rapacious designs upon the lands they colonise, and whose actions cause lasting damage for centuries to come - as seen in the feuds between Gondor and Umbar, the displacement of the Dunlendings and the like - are quite suggestive for exploring Professor Tolkien's concerns about colonialism.

I note that the Shire itself is described as having been "colonized" and that Buckland is described as "a sort of colony from the Shire." Balin's expedition to Moria is also described as a "colony". The presentation appears to vary, with some "colonies" being more positively portrayed than others.

There may be different kinds of "colonies" in the narrative, however: the settling of unsettled land, like the Shire, and the building of colonial empires, like that of the Númenóreans as well as the Men of Gondor after them. It may be that the word "colony" itself is not used in this negative way, and does not appear to be used in The Silmarillion or in Professor Tolkien's letters, but what we would understand to be "colonialism" from a modern perspective (ie empire-building) is portrayed negatively.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The connotation I think has everything to do with whether one is displacing other people to build your colony; nobody seems to think that talk of a possible Mars colony is evil!