Beorhtnoth at Maldon ~ Gandalf at Khazaddûm

[littlemanpoet]

I read an article about this and it seems like the theory works. Some of you may know of a play/poem Tolkien wrote entitled The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth, Beorhthelm's Son. In it, two liegemen of lord Beorhtnoth, find the body of their fallen lord and bring it home. The Danes have defeated Beorhtnoth and his men at the Battle of Maldon. The ensuing talk between the two liegemen is a discussion of the wisdom of Beorhtnoth in letting the Danes cross the Maldon bridge. Beorhtnoth and his men have held off the Danes all day, and the Danes switch strategies; instead of trying to use main force, which hasn't worked, they try to persuade Beorhtnoth to give them a fighting chance as a chivalrous hero. Beorhtnoth allows them the bridge in a gamely show of chivalric heroism; or as Tolkien would say, foolish pride. And the Danes slaughter them all.

Gandalf faces the Balrog at Khazaddûm and does not let it pass. Is this Tolkien's answer to the Battle of Maldon? If so, what is he saying?

Is chivalry good, bad, or a mixed bag? Are there other characters in Tolkien's writings whose actions and decisions touch upon this issue? How so?

[Son of Númenor]

I also see something of a parallel in Theoden's pity for Grima, which results in Saruman's forces breaching Helm's Deep. Maybe this has something to do with the negative effects of concessions Tolkien saw being made in his lifetime: the moral concessions made by his home country during the war and in industrialization; doctrinal concessions made by the church and by his fellow faithful...

The key difference that comes to my mind between the story of Beorhtnoth and the Lord of the Rings (and Beowulf, if you want another point of comparison) is that the latter is an account of a conflict between polar extremes, whereas in the Battle of Maldon there was common ground in the chivalric code and shared humanity of both sides. Gandalf challenging the Balrog is like St. Michael slaying Satan... not in any allegorical sense but in that they represent opposite elemental forces, the light standing against the dark. So thematically, was the decision Gandalf faced akin to Beorhtnoth's? No 'pride goeth before a fall' here.

[littlemanpoet]

Granted that Gandalf's situation was more cosmic in scope as compared to the battle of Maldon. Did the Maldon English think so? Do recall that this was close to 1000 A.D. and all Medievals were expecting the end of the world in that year, and the Viking, Moslem and Magyar raids from North, South, and East, seemed pretty cosmic to them. Be that as it may, perhaps this was Tolkien's first opportunity within the story of LotR to present any kind of commentary on Maldon (not that it was necessarily so prominent in his mind in the heat of first draft, but I can certainly imagine his niggling mind noticing the similarities in the editing process).

Anyway, it seems to me that Gandalf had a few options. He could flee or stand and fight. The Balrog was out of the others' league, so gamely heroism was not an option; also it was outside of the character of Gandalf to go for the chivalric ideal and give the Balrog "a fighting chance". What might have happened if he had fled instead?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Interesting thread, elempi. Let me first add one more example from Tolkien that immediately appeared in my mind when I read your first post. It is from the UT, when the Rohirrim guard the Fords of Isen. The situation is somewhat different there, but nevertheless there is probably a reason why I have thought of it.
Briefly about the situation: Saruman's armies were marching to Rohan (and towards Helm's Deep) and the Rohirrim were holding the Fords of Isen. But, after the first battle, Théodred was slain and the Rohirrim were weakened. Other is said in the quote I will provide. Now there were two leaders present, Elfhelm and Grimbold.

Originally Posted by UT, The Battles of the Fords of Isen

Elfhelm held that the Fords were no longer important (...) since Saruman could clearly send forces down either side of the Isen as suited his purpose and his immediate purpose would undoubtedly be to overrun Westfold and invest the Hornburg (...) Grimbold on the other hand was not willing to abandon the Fords. This was in part due to the tradition of Westfold in which he and Erkenbrand had been bred; but was not without some reason. "We do not know," he said, "what force Saruman has still at his command. (...) As soon as he guesses or discovers how we have disposed our defence, he will certainly send great strength at all speed down the road from Isengard, and crossing the undefended Fords come in our rear, if we are all gathered northwards.”

I would say the image of Maldon could have had some influence on this story. Especially Grimbold's stance and the way it's put I could see as negation of the "beorhtnothic stance" (from certain point of view). Especially the way it's put: was not willing to abandon the Fords - due to tradition - but not without reason. Gandalf also does not flee from the Balrog.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Anyway, it seems to me that Gandalf had a few options. He could flee or stand and fight. The Balrog was out of the others' league, so gamely heroism was not an option; also it was outside of the character of Gandalf to go for the chivalric ideal and give the Balrog "a fighting chance". What might have happened if he had fled instead?

That's a thing I always thought of, since it's not clear enough what would have happened had he fled with the others. In the movies, this is taken to the extreme, because the whole scene looks like total nonsense. The way it is portrayed, there is obviously no need for Gandalf to wait for the balrog. He could flee with the others and adios. Would the balrog go outside and pursue the Fellowship? Somehow I doubt it.
I'd say the main thing we lack is the knowledge of the Balrog's speed. Though if he is as fast as the balrogs in the First Age, he could be very fast.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Yes, their speed was 'winged.' Just not their bodies. <ducks>

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Theoden's pity for Grima, which results in Saruman's forces breaching Helm's Deep.

I'm not sure I follow this at all.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I'm not sure I follow this at all.

The battle of Helm's Deep is a direct result of Grima having borne word to Saruman of The Mark being revivified by Gandalf; except that Grima doesn't arrive at Isengard until after Saruman has send out his army and been captured by the Ents, so it is mistaken.

I see similarities, Legate, but the differences outweigh them: both leaders are thinking in terms of strategy rather than chivalric honor.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The battle of Helm's Deep is a direct result of Grima having borne word to Saruman of The Mark being revivified by Gandalf; except that Grima doesn't arrive at Isengard until after Saruman has send out his army and been captured by the Ents

Those are two contradictory statements: as indeed you say, Grima didn't reach Isengard until afterwards.

In the Battles of the Fords of Isen Tolkien gives a strategic overview of this period, and it's plain that the invasion of Rohan was long-planned. Saruman 'erred' in not launching it immediately upon Theodred's death in the First Battle; but his forces had taken heavier casualties than expected, and Grimbold's and Elfhelm's Riders were still in good order. At any rate the principal goal of the first attack was to kill Theodred. In the event, of course, the Second Battle occurred on the same day as Theoden's healing, so Grima could have had nothing to do with launching the invasion.

NB: Tolkien's time-synching slipped here. In the narrative, the Ent-borne Merry and Pippin reach Isengard in time to watch Saruman's army march out; but in Appendix B they arrive at night on the same day the Second Battle had already been fought!

[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.