|
But the question remains – what effect does the absence of a noble enemy have on Tolkien's heroes? Why did Tolkien omit the noble foe, the 'fellow brave', & if such figures had existed would we have had a different, more complex tale?
Does a hero need a noble foe in order to enhance his own nobility & the tragedy of his fate – does such a foe bring out his humanity?
In one of the Taliesin poems Charles Williams describes a fight to the death between Taliesin & King Cradlemas – a monstrous dictator. Taliesin kills Cradlemas in a fair fight & even though he had had no option – he was fighting for his life & to liberate Arthur's people, yet still Taliesin agonises over what he has done – Williams states 'He (Taliesin) & Cain had one immingled brain'. Taliesin has taken a life & has therefore 'sinned' – even if the cause was just. Tolkien's heroes never agonise in this way – of course, Turin regrets slaying an innocent man, & Frodo seeks to forbid the killing of Saruman, yet there is never any real sense that killing an enemy is morally questionable - & this is, it seems to me, because of the kind of enemies Tolkien provides his heroes with. Its ok to kill the enemy en masse, because the enemy is not noble or courageous. The hero never has to question the morality of what he is doing. Does this prevent his moral growth?
|