The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - LotR -- Book 5 - Chapter 05

Bêthberry · 08-17-2005, 08:54 AM

I've been thinking of a point for some time and it appears that this is the right place to offer it for discussion. It really concerns these two chapters, five and six, of Book III, as well as the early sections on The Shire.

I would agree with davem [!

] that there are very sombre implications to the discussion between Theoden and Ghân-buri-Ghân that certainly recall a terrible and long history of 'ethnic cleansing.' This is very much a 'real politik' discussion of alliance in hard times against a common foe rather than any kind of rapproachment between the two races. But I will leave this point for my main, rambling, thoughts.

Given the association (application?) between the Rohirrim and the ancient Anglo-Saxons, it appears that Tolkien 'split up' his depictions of the English nation into two groups of peoples in Middle-earth: the industrious, largely-peaceful, somewhat sweet and very endearing Hobbits, and the stern, fierce tribe of the warrior code, the Rohirrim. To the Rohirrim, as to the other groups of the race of "Men" Tolkien gives the terrible battle frenzies, the glorification and justification of war, the militaristic and authoritarian social organisations, the insularity which can lead to genocide. We are told through suggestions and matter of fact statements that the hobbits have had troubled times in the past (the Bonfire Glade, the Hedge between Bucklebury and the Old Forest, some distrust amongst the Stoors, Fallohides, and Harfoots), but the eloquence of words, the sweet sweeping along of the reader in the enchantment of the description and narrative is not given to this aspect of hobbit history.

Why not?

It is almost as if Tolkien provided an 'idealised' version of the English nation but to do so he had to acknowledge the very much more terrible aspects of it in another form. To the race of men who are outside The Shire, those 'continental' tribes who foment so much of the violence in Middle earth, he gives the terrible destructive aspects of European history, invasion, conquest, genocide. (He omits slavery, I think, for the good side and assigns that to Mordor and Sauron.) It is true that Tolkien uses hobbits to develope the trope of the Ring (Bilbo, Gollem/Smeagol, Frodo) but perhaps he can do that mainly because he creates hobbits in the first place as so innocent? (Another way of viewing this is to see the heroic ideal of the English nation coming to the salvation of all men, but this is a different discussion.)

Anyhow, I find it interesting that Tolkien splits up his depiction of the English into essentially two different peoples, a shadow and an idealised version.

Any thoughts?

08-17-2005, 08:54 AM	#17
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 5,989	I've been thinking of a point for some time and it appears that this is the right place to offer it for discussion. It really concerns these two chapters, five and six, of Book III, as well as the early sections on The Shire. I would agree with davem [! ] that there are very sombre implications to the discussion between Theoden and Ghân-buri-Ghân that certainly recall a terrible and long history of 'ethnic cleansing.' This is very much a 'real politik' discussion of alliance in hard times against a common foe rather than any kind of rapproachment between the two races. But I will leave this point for my main, rambling, thoughts. Given the association (application?) between the Rohirrim and the ancient Anglo-Saxons, it appears that Tolkien 'split up' his depictions of the English nation into two groups of peoples in Middle-earth: the industrious, largely-peaceful, somewhat sweet and very endearing Hobbits, and the stern, fierce tribe of the warrior code, the Rohirrim. To the Rohirrim, as to the other groups of the race of "Men" Tolkien gives the terrible battle frenzies, the glorification and justification of war, the militaristic and authoritarian social organisations, the insularity which can lead to genocide. We are told through suggestions and matter of fact statements that the hobbits have had troubled times in the past (the Bonfire Glade, the Hedge between Bucklebury and the Old Forest, some distrust amongst the Stoors, Fallohides, and Harfoots), but the eloquence of words, the sweet sweeping along of the reader in the enchantment of the description and narrative is not given to this aspect of hobbit history. Why not? It is almost as if Tolkien provided an 'idealised' version of the English nation but to do so he had to acknowledge the very much more terrible aspects of it in another form. To the race of men who are outside The Shire, those 'continental' tribes who foment so much of the violence in Middle earth, he gives the terrible destructive aspects of European history, invasion, conquest, genocide. (He omits slavery, I think, for the good side and assigns that to Mordor and Sauron.) It is true that Tolkien uses hobbits to develope the trope of the Ring (Bilbo, Gollem/Smeagol, Frodo) but perhaps he can do that mainly because he creates hobbits in the first place as so innocent? (Another way of viewing this is to see the heroic ideal of the English nation coming to the salvation of all men, but this is a different discussion.) Anyhow, I find it interesting that Tolkien splits up his depiction of the English into essentially two different peoples, a shadow and an idealised version. Any thoughts? __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 08-17-2005 at 08:58 AM.