|
Now I step out on a limb. The people of Haleth and Beor and the other clan whose name I don't recall, were of northern stock. The Eorlings were of northern stock. The Breelanders were of northern stock. The Beornings were of northern stock. The Men of Dale were of northern stock.
The Dunlendings, Haradrim, and Easterlings were .... not of northern stock.
It can safely be argued from the tales spun by Tolkien in regard to each of these people groups, that if you're a northerner and a human, chances are you have a disposition tending toward goodness, and contact with Elves or lack of such contact does not obtain. That is, it doesn't matter if northerners have contact with Elves or not; they'll still most likely not be evil. So this tells me that Tolkien's system has it such that northerners have some special quality that the other people groups lack. What is it, and why does Tolkien single northerners out as somehow more capable of withstanding the onslaught of evil?
Take this one step further. The Numenoreans were descended from a combination of Elves and the northern people groups. Those that settle in Umbar, the furthest south of any, descended into evil. Gondor, in the middle, has a middling history of both good and bad: they withstood Sauron but had the kinslaying and other such evils. The people of Arnor did have some groups that fell to the sway of evil in Cardolan and Rhudaur, so it could be said that these are exceptions to the rule of northerness - but so is the Witch Kingdom of Angmar an exception to the rule of evil being southern; so these can be considered the dual exception that proves the rule.
There you have it: why are southerners prone to evil and northerners likely to be good, Elves or not Elves?
|