|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 16, 11:35pm
Post #51 of 95
(44580 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Since you are about 1000 times more lore-learned than me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
do you happen to know why Isildur preferred Arnor over Gondor? It seems to me with both his father and brother gone, and a reasonable claim on Gondor plus "might makes right," he could have stayed in Gondor and given Arnor to his nephew. And I guess I'm thinking more in terms of ambitious men than what drives Middle-earth people, because an ambitious man would want more population under his control, and Gondor was traditionally more populated by the Numenoreans than Arnor.
Arnor offers the advantage of proximity to the Eldar in Lindon and Rivendell, and I'm not sure what else beyond sentiment that Elendil made it his capital. But capitals can be moved (just ask Fornost). Was it less about what Isildur choosing the more advantageous realm and rather more about it made a good story to Tolkien to have the Heirs of Isildur live in the north and be sheltered in obscurity until centuries later they could burst onto the scene as Aragorn/Prince Arthur and cause massive upheaval to Dunedain/Steward politics? It does make great drama.
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Dor-Lomin
Mar 17, 9:06am
Post #52 of 95
(41087 views)
Shortcut
|
We don't hear much about the Ringwraithrs in the tales of the last alliance, but they must have been there. Later in the third age, Gandalf says that the ringwrithes then where only shadows of the power and terror they would have and create if Sauron had the Ring, well Sauron had the Ring in the seond age. Ghe Ringwratihes where pretty damn terrible in the third age. So precisely how bad where tey in the second?
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Mar 20, 1:52am
Post #53 of 95
(40808 views)
Shortcut
|
You are very kind, thank you, and I regard you and your contributions as very much loresome :)
As to your question, I had a good riffle around various texts and I came up with what I regard to be a pretty unsatisfactory collection of thoughts. The short of it, in my view, is that Isildur chose Arnor because that’s where Elendil chose to establish his high kingship of the Dúnedain in Exile. In Tolkien’s secondary world, primogeniture was (usually) the rule when it came to inheritance and if Elendil made Arnor his seat of power, then Isildur would reasonably be expected to follow suit. There’s certainly no doubt as to the senior partner at the time of Isildur’s accession (“[he] proclaimed his sovereign lordship over all the Dúnedain in the North and in the South”), in that Isildur is effectively able to ‘order’ the Kingdom of Gondor (“restoring its order and defining its bounds”) and then ‘deliver’ it to his nephew Meneldil, before departing for Arnor (‘The Disaster of the Gladden Fields’). The debate between Arvedui, last King of Arthedain, and the Council of Gondor during the succession crisis that followed the death of King Ondoher and all of his direct male heirs is worth considering too (‘Appendix A’, LotR). In that exchange, Arvedui points out:
While Elendil still lived, the conjoint rule in the South was committed to his sons; but when Elendil fell, Isildur departed to take up the high kingship of his father, and committed the rule of the South in like manner to the son of his brother. He did not relinquish his royalty in Gondor, nor intend that the realm of Elendil be divided forever.
Setting to one side for a moment that the Council of Gondor ignored Arvedui, this is more evidence (or assertion of evidence) of seniority that arguably doubles as a statement of some prosaic facts: Gondor was originally a co-kingdom that was and could be disposed of by a high king, whose direct royal patrimony was in the North. The bitter victory of the (Last) Alliance had created two vacancies, the high kingship and the kingship of Gondor. Isildur inherited the high kingship on the death of his father at the same time as being the sole surviving co-king of Gondor. The only territorial-patrimony vacancy was therefore Arnor. Isildur then had a choice to make. In theory, he could have remained in Gondor and perhaps dispatched Meneldil or his own heir, Elendur to rule in Arnor. However, Tolkien writes Isildur as effectively replicating the original foundation of the Realms in Exile: Arnor for the high king and Gondor as the cadet kingdom.
I also noted the following from ‘Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age’:
But soon he [Isildur] departed [from Gondor], and after he had given counsel to Meneldil, his brother’s son, and had committed to him the rule of the south, he bore away the Ring, to be an heirloom of his house; and he forsook the South Kingdom, for he purposed to take up his father’s realm in Eriador, far from the shadow of the Black Land.
Again, we’re presented with content on seniority and a conscious choice on the part of Isildur to base his high kingship in Arnor, mirroring the choice of Elendil. More speculatively on my part, perhaps the final sentence alludes to Isildur desiring to dwell as far as possible from Mordor as the bounds of the Realms in Exile allowed.
A reflection on the association between Elendil and Arnor, an association inherited by Isildur. I agree, with Arnor came advantageous proximity to Lindon, the Elven superpower of its day. And the friendship between Elendil and Gil-galad is something that is repeatedly mentioned in the texts. Whether Isildur saw things quite the same way is hard to say. However, his refusal of the counsel of Elrond and Círdan suggests that the relationship between the surviving (now ‘estranged’) rulers between the Misty Mountains and the Havens wasn’t going to be of the same depth as between their predecessors. It’s also worth reflecting on the original foundation period of the Realms in Exile. The narrative takes a while to settle down but what we get in ‘Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age’ is that in the wrack of the Akallabêth, the ships of Elendil, Isildur and Anárion are separated and where they wash up in Middle-earth establishes the basic geography of their future realms – Elendil in the North and Isildur and Anárion in the South. There is no rhyme or reason, other than perhaps everything (probably) happens for a reason in Middle-earth…!
Turning now to whether the smart move for Isildur would have been to relocate the high kingship to Gondor and Osgiliath, from Arnor and Annúminas. You mention the demographic strength of Gondor being a sensible drawcard for reorganising the high kingdom – at least in the eyes of an ambitious king. I can’t fault the logic! However, it’s only in the restoration period of Elessar that this reality seems to be acknowledged. Yes, Elessar does travel to Arnor and “dwells for a while by Lake Evendim” (‘Appendix B’). However, the anchor of the Reunited Kingdom appears to have been Gondor and Minas Tirith.
And finally, to your point about the better drama being in having Aragorn’s ancestors hidden away up North, before the scion himself emerges from obscurity to claim his ancient birthright. It definitely makes for a great story (‘the Greatest book of the Twentieth Century’, no less!) but it takes a while to get there – and I’m not referring to how long Tolkien made his publisher wait. Aragorn starts out as Trotter the hobbit, who evolves into a human Ranger, who in turn are a group who are only gradually firmed up as Númenórean exiles – while Gondor (or ‘Ond’) as a Númenórean patrimony takes even longer to emerge from the creative mists. And as for Arnor and its history, that’s primarily a construct of the even later drafting process for the Appendices.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 20, 4:40pm
Post #54 of 95
(37018 views)
Shortcut
|
I knew I could count on you to help me figure this out, Felagund! And according to reddit/Quenya, hantanyë tyen = thank you. 1
Ultimately Aragorn made the move I thought Isildur would make: claim the high kingship with his base in Gondor rather than Arnor. Gondor was always where the action was: the money, the men, the lands of men to conquer and bring Numenorean enlightenment and good government to (at least that's what Hyarmendacil I's pamphlets said). Gondor is where the great cities were: our imagination can make anything of Fornost and Annuminas, but it's hard to think they rival Minas Tirith, or Dol Amroth, or that Arnor ever built anything monumental and wondrous like the Argonath.
One thing about Isildur's rationale that occurred to me while reading your thoughts was that he was establishing tradition rather than following it, and Aragorn was the disrupter, but no one seemed to mind, so Isildur could have conceivably done anything he wanted. And with Rivendell and Lindon depopulated after the Ring's destruction, maybe that appealing aspect of Arnor was eliminated for Aragorn? Arnor was after all Aragorn's childhood home and thus more familiar to him, but he didn't let sentiment interfere with realpolitik. Or had Aragorn learned the hard way that you couldn't trust Gondor to Stewards and expect them to give it up later?  I do wonder if sentiment *did* influence partially Isildur for the reasons you gave: his father chose it, and it was far from Mordor and the deaths of his father and brother.
And thanks for the reminder that Tolkien started with Trotter the hobbit, so what looks like a story built from the start on top of a Prince Arthur tale wasn't so.
*****
1: Since anything can disappear from the Internet, it's worth reposting here for posterity (hoping these boards' contents are migrated, not lost) the Reddit reply (from 2020), which was quite detailed and showed linguists deciphering a Tolkien language, which is a nice irony, given that Tolkien did the same as a professor but as an author left work behind for others:
Roandil:
The Ambar Eldaron lexicon was last updated around 2008. New linguistic papers by Tolkien have been posthumously published since then, so I recommend a current resource like Parf Edhellen (user-friendly and comprehensive) or Eldamo (more technical, but indispensible). Use these in conjunction with a grammar primer like Atanquesta to start picking up Quenya; r/Sindarin has links to excellent resources for learning that language. Feel free to ping us in these subreddits or our Discord server with questions!
So, you’ve got a hodgepodge of languages in your original post — heryn, lyth, and thílyn are Sindarin words (and Tolkien derived simbelmynë from Old English, so it’s not an Elvish word at all). In Sindarin, the letter y only represents a vowel, that of French lune (“moon”), not English “lune.” Round your lips as if to say “oo” but say “ee” instead and you should be close. Check out the IPA vowel chart here and click [y] and to hear the difference. !Hannon allen looks to be a misspelling of Annon allen, one of the Sindarin “thank you” formulas currently used in place of the films’ *Hannon le (which we now know is an unlikely formation; check this article out for more detail).
In Quenya (note: not Quenyan), the letter y only represents a consonant, the first sound in English “yay.” High Elven doesn’t have the [y] vowel sound described above.
The only “thank”-related word we have from Tolkien is Eruhantalë “Thanksgiving of Eru,” the name of a Númenórean festival. From this compound we’ve extrapolated a verb *hanta- “to give thanks,” so for “thank you,” the current general consensus is informal/familiar hantanyë tyen, formal/polite hantanyë lyen (lit. “I-give-thanks to-you”). These are pronounced something like “han-TAN-yeh tyen/lyen.”
Note also that hantanyë can optionally shorten to hantan (“HAN-tan”), and some argue that hanta- rather means “to thank” — not “to give thanks” — and so takes direct objects tye/lye instead of indirect objects tyen/lyen. Without more info from Tolkien, we can’t be certain, but the forms I’ve discussed are intelligible.
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
Mar 20, 9:40pm
Post #55 of 95
(34112 views)
Shortcut
|
One thing about Isildur's rationale that occurred to me while reading your thoughts was that he was establishing tradition rather than following it, and Aragorn was the disrupter, but no one seemed to mind, so Isildur could have conceivably done anything he wanted. And with Rivendell and Lindon depopulated after the Ring's destruction, maybe that appealing aspect of Arnor was eliminated for Aragorn? Arnor was after all Aragorn's childhood home and thus more familiar to him, but he didn't let sentiment interfere with realpolitik.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that, yes, Arnor was smaller and (presumably) less wealthy when Isildur took up its kingship, but it didn't exist when Aragorn established the Reunited Kingdom. Indeed, even its successor kingdoms hadn't existed for more than a thousand years, because after the Angmar War "the Dúnedain were now few and all the peoples of Eriador diminished" (LOTR, Appendix A). The House of Isildur entrusted its heirlooms and the fostering of "all the sons of the chieftains" (who no longer claimed the title of king) to Elrond in Rivendell because the remnant of the ethnic Númenórean population of Arnor were scraping out a living "in the woods between Hoarwell and Loudwater" (NoMe, p. 366 n12) southwest of Rivendell. One would expect the human population to rebound in much less than a thousand years, but to quote Squire from a no-longer-recent thread:
Speculation is fun, of course, and Tolkien knew as much as the next medievalist did about the nature of European settlements, trade, and realms, etc. in pre-modern times, when he considered how to frame his Middle-earth version of those lands.
But then he ignored what he knew, as needed for his stories. In particular, his world is practically deserted relative to Europe in the middle ages, because he's writing quest adventures. Such tales (both Bilbo's and Frodo's) need long stretches of dangerous and isolated travel remote from help or interference by locals, and then relatively isolated places of habitation for rest and refits, free from realistic political or regional conflicts that would complicate the stories.
So whatever sentimental attachment Aragorn did or didn't have to the land of his birth — I'm inclined to agree he did have one — Arnor needed to be rebuilt and largely repopulated from the ground up. I imagine that work was still ongoing at the end of Aragorn's reign, 120 years later. While we know he sometimes "stay[ed] for a while" in "his house in Annúminas restored", including (probably the first occasion) in S.R. 1436 / IV.15, it would be many years before there was much for him to actually rule there. And seeing how the reconstruction of Arnor must have been financed in large part by the Gondorian treasury, it would seem to me eminently unwise of Aragorn to be an absentee king of Gondor.
(This post was edited by Eldy on Mar 20, 9:45pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 21, 12:01am
Post #56 of 95
(33071 views)
Shortcut
|
Gandalf told Butterbur that Arnor would repopulate, and it sounded sooner rather than later to me, i.e., probably within Butterbur's lifetime, or that's how I read this:
‘Then the Greenway will be opened again, and his messengers will come north, and there will be comings and goings, and the evil things will be driven out of the waste-lands. Indeed the waste in time will be waste no longer, and there will be people and fields where once there was wilderness.’
I don't think we need to split hairs over "in time," which is sufficiently vague, but as Butterbur counters that he wants to be left alone, and Gandalf assures him that Aragorn/Strider will do so, it seems more anchored in the present than a distant future. How this repopulation happens is something we've discussed here before, where it seems more of a magic fairy spell than cold hard demographics, with the sense that the King is restoring fertility to the land, the people, everything, so naturally there will be more people.
But aside from that point, yes, thank you for your point that with Arnor basically empty except for that small settlement of Rangers (and I believe some conjectured isolated settlements scattered elsewhere in Eriador), Aragorn would have been king of a quiet, too-quiet realm in Arnor. The fact that he's buried in Gondor shows he never made Arnor his primary realm. It's possible a later descendant did, or maybe the Southern Strategy became permanent.
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
Mar 21, 12:22am
Post #57 of 95
(32890 views)
Shortcut
|
... I've no trouble believing that the process of reclaiming wilderness areas for agriculture began within a year or two of Aragorn taking the throne – and would surely focus at first on places easily accessible by major roads like the two which meet at Bree, hence Butterbur's concern being understandable – so Gandalf's statement would easily come true within Butterbur's lifetime, but that doesn't necessarily mean there wouldn't still be a very long process towards repopulating the entire former territory of Arnor. That said, your point about the "magic fairy spell" is well-taken ... "the hands of a healer" writ large, I suppose. :P
(This post was edited by Eldy on Mar 21, 12:25am)
|
|
|
squire
Gondolin
Mar 21, 4:49am
Post #58 of 95
(31387 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for this detailed and well-sourced argument about how and why Arnor seemed to have a prestigious advantage over Gondor in the early years of the Third Age, when as the history played out, Gondor grew and prospered while Arnor divided and withered.
This whole thread has been basically wonderful.
squire online:
Unfortunately my longtime internet service provider abandoned its hosting operations last year. I no longer have any online materials to share with the TORn community.
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mar 21, 5:06pm
Post #59 of 95
(27445 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Unfinished business down South too....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks everyone on (yet another) excellent subthread - hope this does as a reply to all.
Along with all the reasons folks have already given for Aragorn staying down South, there's also unfinished business:
“For though Sauron had passed, the hatreds and evils that he bred had not died, and the King of the West had many enemies to subdue before the White Tree could grow in peace. And wherever King Elessar went with war King Éomer went with him; and beyond the Sea of Rhûn and on the far fields of the South the thunder of the cavalry of the Mark was heard, and the White Horse upon Green flew in many winds until Éomer grew old.”
LOTR Appendices So there we have a sketch, I think, of Gondor filling the power vacuum caused by Sauron's fall, before someone else does. Stabilising the situation may have taken some time!
The Nether Appendices presumably give all the exciting details of thundering cavalry and what the fishing was like in the Sea of Rhûn. But alas, they remain unrecovered (though I do have an update if anyone is interested....  )
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Mar 21, 5:11pm)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mar 21, 5:39pm
Post #60 of 95
(27239 views)
Shortcut
|
OK so here comes a tangent (I did say I'd be happy with a meandering discussion!)
Thinking about Aragorn as a fairy-tale king, and squire's comment (already cited by Eldy) that:
Tolkien knew as much as the next medievalist did about the nature of European settlements, trade, and realms, etc. in pre-modern times, when he considered how to frame his Middle-earth version of those lands.
But then he ignored what he knew, as needed for his stories.
squire here
That had me thinking about a quote from GRR Martin.
Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?
...
The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.
GRR Martin quoted by Shaun Gunner on the Tolkien Society Website. The link to the original Rolling Stone interview has broken
Now my reason for quoting this is not to invite criticism of Martin, by anyone feeling they have to defend Tolken (or Aragoorn). I think Martin can see that Aragorn does not have to have a tax policy (etc.) : that's firstly because of the fairy-tale nature of Middle-earth. And secondly because of how Tolkien has framed the story. The action stops before the problems Martin lists - which would of course affect a real ruler in Aragorn's situation - take effect. Somewhere (maybe someone can remember where) Tolkien talks about fairy-tale needing to stop and start at the right points of a narrative. A narrative that could be continued pseudo-historically, but probably shouldn't be, artistically.
It's clear, I think, that Martin is explaining how he decided to do something other than splashing along the mainstream Tolkien created. A few years ago some of us here discussed some critics of Tolkien (starting with Michael Morcock) The usual problem was that (as Tolkien himself pointed out The Lord of the Rings is one of those things/ If you like it you do, if you don't then you boo). I think GRR Martin here shows that he isn't booing, just explining how and why he chose to investigate what happens if he did something different to a work I think he's understood pretty well. (Which he certainly did!)
Tha's where I plan to leave GRR Martin for this post, and go back to Aragorn. Thinking of Aragorn the fairy-tale king I'm also reminded of our last LOTR readthrough (back in 2016) and this point; the last time we see Aragorn in live narration rather than appendices:
The hobbits and their remaining companions part company with Aragorn and his court:
Quote
"With that they parted, and it was then the time of sunset; and when after a while they turned and looked back, they saw the King of the West sitting upon his horse with his knights about him; and the falling Sun shone upon them and made all their harness to gleam like red gold, and the white mantle of Aragorn was turned to a flame. Then Aragorn took the green stone and held it up, and there came a green fire from his hand."
Firstly, that's quite a piece of writing!
Secondly, from Aragorn's POV the others are literally riding off into the sunset: but I'm not sure we often get this view: the view looking back.
Thirdly it's as if their long-time friend and comrade Aragorn is turning into a legendary Arthurian King.
contribution by me to the chapter discussion of Many Partings, led by Mironiel I don't know whether Tolkien had in mind that effect I suggest as 'Thirdly', but it works for me!
~~~~~~
"I am not made for querulous pests." Frodo 'Spooner' Baggins.
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Mar 21, 5:40pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 21, 10:48pm
Post #61 of 95
(25484 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Is anyone here in touch with recent fantasy book hits?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. I'm a pickier reader than I used to be, and I veered away from fantasy years ago after reading many mediocre, pointless stories that did or didn't imitate Tolkien; just too many disappointments for me.
That's context for my question: given the popularity of the TV show Game of Thrones (debuted 14 years ago), and the obvious tie to the books, has there been a new generation of fantasy writers using Martin/GOT as a template instead of Tolkien? Maybe with suspicious titles like Game of Bones or Lame of Thrones or Dame of Homes. Back when bookstores were numerous and browsing was fun, I remember there were various knock-offs of The Da Vinci Code, for example. I realize I could browse Goodreads to try to answer my question, but it doesn't give the same sense that big store displays used to, signaling "this is hot! and look at the books like it."
|
|
|
cats16
Gondolin
Mar 23, 4:31am
Post #62 of 95
(23940 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Of all the things for me to comment about...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in this interesting thread...
I'm going to mention the romantasy subgenre, as it's been called. Writers like Sarah J. Maas and Rebecca Yarros are selling millions and millions of books, and I do think it's interesting that these books took off not long after GOT fever died down. I'm by no means an expert so I won't try to connect it to this discussion coherently beyond saying I think many of these writers encountered Martin's works and decided they wanted to go in a very different direction, but I do think it's something worth mentioning as this subgenre is booming: I believe one of Yarros's recent books is the highest-selling fiction book of the last ~15 years, or something to that effect.
What's more interesting (to me) is how many people one can encounter who have read/are reading these books and will tell you that this subgenre has gotten them back into reading again. Which, regardless of one's thoughts on any of this, is a very positive thing to hear.
And this is before any TV/movie adaptations have been released!
Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!
(This post was edited by cats16 on Mar 23, 4:35am)
|
|
|
cats16
Gondolin
Mar 23, 5:29am
Post #63 of 95
(23741 views)
Shortcut
|
I interpret Aragorn's deference to the hobbits after the Ring's destruction as a sign that he wishes for them to lead the healing of the nearest western lands, while he and Eomer and others work in the East in the immediate term.
The events of the Scouring of the Shire come to mind - I could imagine an alternate version of events where the leaders of the West rush to aid the hobbits in their effort to rid the land of Sharkey. We often focus on Gandalf's non-participation in those events, but I think Aragorn's absence speaks to a similar mindset about the future world that they're all building here.
Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Mar 24, 9:53pm
Post #64 of 95
(11195 views)
Shortcut
|
Your post got me to wondering!
You're so right - we've often discussed previously Gandalf's declining to 'set aright' whatever ill he senses to have overtaken the Shire. Purely speculative on my part but I find it harder to imagine Elessar, had he been in the company of the hobbits on their return leg, leaving them to sort out the troubles in the Shire. Not from any doubt that the four hobbits in question weren't capable of rallying resistance to the pseudo-Lotho regime. But rather from the knowledge that as the Returned King, there was a lot of fighting and ordering ahead of him to do. Deliberately sitting out a fight in the Shire, had he been present in the North, just doesn't strike me as in character in this context. Perhaps there is even belated recognition on the part of Elessar of what had been left undone, in his issuing of the "edict that Men are not to enter the Shire, and he makes it a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre.", in IV.6 / SR 1427 ('Appendix B').
While I was doing a bit of browsing in 'The Field of Cormallen' chapter of LotR as part of writing this reply, I paused at the following exchange between Frodo and Gandalf:
Then Gandalf came in and in his arms, to the wonder of Frodo, he bore the sword and the elven-cloak and the mithril-coat that had been taken from him in Mordor. For Sam he brought a coat of gilded mail, and his elven-cloak all healed of the soils and hurst that it had suffered; and then he laid before them two swords.
'I do not wish for any sword,' said Frodo.
'Tonight at least you should wear one,' said Gandalf.
I hadn't considered this passage before in the context of the Scouring of the Shire and to do so is admittedly even more speculation on my part. After all, the honouring of Frodo and Sam at the feast held at Cormallen is a martial affair, in many respects, so not bearing a sword on the occasion may have looked out of place. Even so, the words passed between Frodo and Gandalf here captures the sentiment well, that Frodo has no wish to bear arms yet the choice at the Cormallen, as it later is in the Shire, is not his to make.
And for those interested in a bit of unpacking at HoMe, the above passage concerned with Frodo having to be persuaded to bear arms did not appear in the First Edition of LotR! It was added as part of the Second Edition, published in 1966 ('The Field of Kormallen', HoMe IX)
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Mar 24, 10:37pm
Post #65 of 95
(10882 views)
Shortcut
|
Good to see you Eldy!
While thumbing my way through the back end of 'Appendix B', where most of the good stuff for the Fourth Age can be found, I was reminded that I occasionally forget that Gondor and Arnor, though reunited under Elessar, remained two kingdoms. Just as it was established to be so by Elendil before him. The annals that comprise the 'Later Events that Concern the Members of the Fellowship of the Ring' have a couple of nice references to this effect, specific to Arnor, under the entry years SR 1427 / IV.6 and SR 1434 / IV.13 respectively:
King Elessar issues an edict that Men are not to enter the Shire, and he makes it a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre [of Annúminas].
King Elessar makes the Thain [of the Shire], the Master [of Buckland], and the Mayor [of the Shire / Michel Delving] Counsellors of the North-kingdom.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Mar 25, 12:21am
Post #66 of 95
(10166 views)
Shortcut
|
Without wanting to wander too far into power-level funnery, the only reference I can find to the Ringwraiths specific to the Second Age is the following from 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' (The Sil):
The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Enemy's most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death.
This doesn't seem that much different to how the Ringwraiths are described in the Third Age. I note that in Letter 210, Tolkien refers to the 'upgrade' accorded to the Witch-king by Sauron ahead of the Battle of the Pelennor Fields:
There, put in command by Sauron, he [the Witch-king] is given an added demonic force.
Perhaps this resembles something of what Sauron may have 'granted' his Nazgûl during, for example, the War of the Last Alliance? Not that we hear anything of their active role during that war. As for what might be implied, when it came to it, the leaders of the Alliance were able to overcome even Sauron face to face - even though it cost them dearly. And if the cream of the Eldar and the Númenóreans were able to take down Sauron, then presumably some of them would have been able to withstand the Nazgûl, just as Glorfindel in the Third Age was able to give the Witch-king a run for his money.
An aside: while reading up on this, I got interested in how, precisely, the fortunes of the Nazgûl were described at the point that Sauron was defeated by Gil-galad and Elendil. The main reference is in 'Appendix B' of LotR:
[entry for II.3441] Sauron passes away and the Ringwraiths go into the shadows.
Then there is this from Letter 131:
The Dark Lord is no longer on his throne, but his monsters are not wholly destroyed, and his dreadful servants, slaves of the Ring, endure as shadows among the shadows.
And also this from a draft of the Appendices ('The Tale of Years of the Second Age', HoMe XII):
The Ringwraiths fall into darkness and silence.
I don't read this to necessarily mean that the Ringwraiths have been defeated in combat at the end the war. Rather, that they flee or are forced to flee - perhaps 'contracting' in their potency whilst Sauron is at his lowest ebb. They have no will of their own, after all, so there's not much in the way of meaningful existence for them until Sauron becomes Sauron Redivivus. Moreover, there's an interesting comparison to be made with the way the Ringwraiths are described by Gandalf upon their temporary 'destruction' at the Ford of the Bruinen:
'[the Ringwraiths] have been obliged to return as best they can to their Master in Mordor, empty and shapeless.'
As Sauron still exists as a manifest force/entity at this point and is exerting his power through the One Ring even without holding it, the Nazgûl are able to resume their existence with purpose relatively swiftly - despite the setback at the Bruinen.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
Mar 25, 12:51am
Post #67 of 95
(9999 views)
Shortcut
|
Good to see you as well, Felagund, and I appreciate you making this observation! I'll admit it's something that had slipped my mind: I think I got tripped up by the term "Reunited Kingdom", which appears in "Note on the Shire Records" in the LOTR prologue but has been elevated in prominence by fannish use. It's a convenient term, but it would seem it elides some (fascinating albeit largely implied) political details.
(This post was edited by Eldy on Mar 25, 12:52am)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Mar 25, 3:18am
Post #69 of 95
(9295 views)
Shortcut
|
...2011 was not 14 years ago. 
Can I see your math on that? Or are you saying it's only been 13(+) years because it debuted on April 17, 2011?
Oh, or maybe you are feigning denial? Humor then? ;)
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Mar 25, 3:19am)
|
|
|
cats16
Gondolin
Mar 25, 6:46am
Post #70 of 95
(8351 views)
Shortcut
|
we could say the same of Legolas and Gimli too, had they been anywhere near the Shire at the time! 
And very interesting thoughts, as always. I don't think I recalled the exact phrasing of "a Free Land under the protection of the Northern Sceptre," which is a bit more spelled out than my memory thought it was.
Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!
(This post was edited by cats16 on Mar 25, 6:50am)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 25, 3:28pm
Post #71 of 95
(6064 views)
Shortcut
|
While I can't call it my cup of tea, from googling about those authors and their books, they seem to fall on the semi-gritty side of things, so reminiscent of GOT, but it's worth remembering the Conan and John Norman's Gor series were pre-GOT and gritty, so maybe they hark back to a more distant legacy? Anyway, they are apparently hot sellers with devout fan bases, so they struck an audience nerve that wasn't pulsing in the 1950s or 1960s.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 25, 3:30pm
Post #72 of 95
(6053 views)
Shortcut
|
And for those interested in a bit of unpacking at HoMe, the above passage concerned with Frodo having to be persuaded to bear arms did not appear in the First Edition of LotR! It was added as part of the Second Edition, published in 1966 ('The Field of Kormallen', HoMe IX) To me it made sense that Frodo underwent a profound transformation, and in my mind he could have as easily become a blood-thirsty warrior as a pacifist, I'd just expect change of some kind. I'm glad that the Second Edition plants that line in Cormallen to set up Frodo the pacifist in the Scouring. A little hint goes a long way.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Gondolin
Mar 25, 3:43pm
Post #73 of 95
(5993 views)
Shortcut
|
I was thinking they were active a few times on their own, right?
- Conquering Minas Ithil on their
- Establishing Angmar to destroy Arnor (we assume the W-king acted alone of the Nine)
Then maybe it was Unfinished Tales, but I dimly recall a Gandalf-Elrond conversation about who was inhabiting Dol Guldur and setting up "a disturbance in the Force" which was clearly a Dark Realm and not, for example, an Easterling lord. They debated if it was one of the Ulairi or Sauron, hence Gandalf's secret trip there. But within the context of "what were the Nazgul capable of when their boss was down and out," it seemed plausible to the Wise that they could make their own nasty little realm in Dol Guldur to have a negative impact on both Mirkwood and Lorien.
None of that undermines your point, however, since these are one-offs far apart and few when added together. And in my head canon, whether they're taking Minas Ithil or destroying Arnor, they're taking orders from Sauron.
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Mar 25, 7:49pm
Post #74 of 95
(4163 views)
Shortcut
|
The timelines are interesting for these events and it's worth poking around them a bit, I reckon!
It's in 'Appendix B' of LotR that there's a definite reference to the 'disturbance in the Force' moment that you mention ('The Tale of Years'):
c. 1100 The Wise (the Istari and the chief Eldar) discover that an evil power has made a stronghold at Dol Guldur. It is thought to be one of the Nazgûl.
There is also this reference in 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' (The Sil):
Ever vigilant was Mithrandir, and he it was that most doubted the darkness of Mirkwood, for though many deemed that it was wrought by the Ringwraiths, he feared that it was indeed the first shadow of Sauron returning...
The ominous entry for c. III.1100 follows the no less ominous entry for III.1050, when we learn that "About this time a shadow falls on Greenwood, and men begin to call it Mirkwood." So, yes, the Wise have the wrong suspect in mind for the next millennium (the entry for III.2060 indicates when the Wise are finally wising up). But are they wrong about the matter of agency regarding Ringwraiths, bereft of the commanding will of Sauron? Harder to tell, even though they are written as believing this to be a credible hypothesis. Let's have a look at some more dates. The entry for c. III.1300 records the first reference to the return of the Ringwraiths ("The Nazgûl reappear. The chief of these comes north to Angmar"). And then we have this, from 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age':
And in the days of Telemnar [r. III.1634 -III.1636], the third and twentieth of the line of Meneldil, a plague came upon dark winds out of the east, and it smote the King and his children, and many of the people of Gondor perished. Then the forts on the borders of Mordor were deserted, and Minas Ithil was emptied of its people; and evil entered again into the Black Land secretly, and the ashes of Gorgoroth were stirred as by a cold wind, for the dark shapes gathered there. It is said that these were indeed the Úlairi, whom Sauron called the Nazgûl, the Nine Ringwraiths that had long remained hidden, but returned now to prepare the ways of their Master, for he had begun to grow again.
So, the Nazgûl are back in circulation by c. III.1300 and by III.1634 at the latest, they appear to be acting on the instructions of Sauron, with specific goals in mind. What then of the terminus post quem? We have c. III.1050 (when Greenwood begins to darken) and c. III.1100 (when the Wise uncover Dol Guldur) as possible dates for the return of Sauron as a directing and coalescing force of evil ("and slowly he [Sauron] grew and took shape there [in Dol Guldur] - 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age'). The reappearance of the Ringwraiths isn't officially recorded until c. III.1300, so if we take these early dates as viable candidates for the revival of Sauron to a point where he could exert his will over those slaved to the Nine Rings of Power, then all that follows from c. III.1300 is conceivably on the instruction of Sauron. That includes the founding of Angmar and the invasions of Arnor, not to mention the conquest of Minas Ithil.
There is a very brief reference to Angmar in 'The Quest for Erebor' (Unfinished Tales) that tentatively adds further weight to the above theory. Gandalf's ruminations about the 'why' of bothering that poor sleeping Smaug includes the following (emphasis mine):
You may think that Rivendell was out of his [Sauron's] reach, but I did not think so. The state of things in the North was very bad. The Kingdom under the Mountain and the strong Men of Dale were no more. To resist any force that Sauron might send to regain the northern passes and the old lands of Angmar there were only the Dwarves of the Iron Hills, and behind them lay a desolation and a Dragon.
Admittedly, 'regain' is doing some heavy lift in my interpretation but there is at least the suggestion that for Sauron to be understood as regaining "the old lands of Angmar" this requires the belief that they were previously under his control, ie. via the Witch-king. Leaping from that assumption, we can then hypothesise that the Witch-king was in the North in the first place at Sauron's bidding, with the express purpose of picking off the weaker of the hated Númenórean Realms in Exile. Grudge-driven, arm's-length grand strategy typical of the Third Age incarnation of the Dark Lord.
This passage isn't decisive on its own but in conjunction with the above timelines, it's eminently arguable, in my view, that the Ringwraiths were in abeyance until the return of Sauron. At which point, there was a malign will to effectively reactivate their existence and provide purpose again. This of course is in contrast to what the Wise once believed: that Sauron had not returned and that one or more Ringwraiths were free-styling for a few centuries.
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
Felagund
Nargothrond
Mar 25, 8:01pm
Post #75 of 95
(4065 views)
Shortcut
|
I couldn't, for the life of me, remember the main (only?) source for the term 'Reunited Kingdom' and you've solved it for me!
Welcome to the Mordorfone network, where we put the 'hai' back into Uruk
|
|
|
|
|
