Quote:
|
Edit: Cross-posting with Fordim, who makes some excellent observations. I wonder though how to reconcile Tolkien's presentation of debate and concensus as critical virtues with his apparent preference for monarchy.
|
I don't think that it is at all hard to reconcile these positions. In fact, one of the things to emerge quite clearly during the Council is how good a ruler Aragorn will be. He makes his opinions clear, listens to other people, doesn't just boss people around, and helps the group arrive at a good decision. This will later (sorry to get ahead a bit
Esty) be seen again at the council that Aragorn calls to decide what the lords of the West should do after their success at the Pelennor Fields. He could have just ordered people, but he doesn't do this.
Shakespeare's model of good kingship is, I think, appropriate here. In all of his plays, the 'good' king is the one who listens to the people, allows debate, encourages opinions and then makes a decision that takes all of these into account. His decision is final, but it is not one that he arrives at all on his own. It's Shakespeare's tyrants who simply decide what's best based on their own desires and impose that decision on others.
I think that Aragorn proves himself to be a great king at the Council. The odds are pretty good that he knows before they start talking what needs to be done with the Ring -- what his ancestor failed to do. At the same time, his decision to do this ("I will go with you") is NOT what he would personally want for himself (to head to Minas Tirith with Boromir to defend his kingdom and perhaps win Arwen).