Nobility in the books

[Dûrbelethwen]

I noticed it seemed like every major character in Professor Tolkien's books about Middle Earth are of the nobility with the exception of Sam. I do not see why this is? Sam showed that a person does not have to be of the nobility to be a hero.

[Imladris]

Well, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin weren't nobility either. I'm not sure Gandalf could be considered of royal lineage either. Boromir was not the prince/king of Gondor, but the son of the steward.

[Lolidir]

Nobility - someone of a high (hereditary) rank.

Gandalf was a Wizard and many people considered that a powerful title. Boromir and Faramir were the sons of the Steward, who was ruleing at the time so i would consider that nobility. one reason i think it is like this is because they were going to a council in Rivendell about the fate of ME, and you wouldnt find any random people there, just like you wouldnt find any random people at the UN meetings. and then the destruction of the ring had to be done imediately so there was no time to go home assemble an army, so Elrond made the Fellowship of the nine, who were of the nobility because they were at an important meeting.

[Makar]

[QUOTE=Lolidir](This quote has been removed from this reply, as it was removed from the reply which this reply was replying to)QUOTE]

Merry and Pippin were both nobles, in that they were the heirs to lines that controlled lands with boundries in which other clans lived and acknowledged their leadership. Frodo was not necessarily noble, I suppose. Not even Bilbo's riches helped him obtain upward mobility, though his family was well respected. It seems Bilbo may have squandered that respect. But, that aside, everybody else is a noble or a demi-god (Gandalf). Also, have you noticed all of the importance placed on bloodlines by Tolkien? So-and-so son of so-and-so son of so-and-so and so on and so forth.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Keep in mind that the story is very political.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

It's also very pre-modern. The mythical societies Tolkien is writing about don't have political correctness yet. Emphasis on bloodline was a fact of life until a few hundred years ago, except in very select cases (Rome, I believe, had a couple of emperors descended from slaves).

But while major characters are either noble or sent by their masters (Gandalf- who was a servant, after all; Sam), minor characters from more ordinary families are pretty important to some parts of the story. Ioreth comes to mind.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Dûrbelethwen

I noticed it seemed like every major character in Professor Tolkien's books about Middle Earth are of the nobility with the exception of Sam. I do not see why this is? Sam showed that a person does not have to be of the nobility to be a hero.

Bear in mind the subject matter - "ordinary" people are often no more than pawns or arrow fodder in high-matter such as the control of the war. I have bumped up a thread called "Master Samwise can read" which may interest you and I won't repeat the comments I made there regarding Sam and social mobility. However, Sam, in many ways is one of the most admirable characters in the books, modelled on "ordinary" men whose courage in WW1 so inspired Tolkien. If you look at British history, it is seldom until very recently that commoners have played a significant role. Sam is symbolic of a slightly more meritocratic world order.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Imladris

Well, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin weren't nobility either. I'm not sure Gandalf could be considered of royal lineage either. Boromir was not the prince/king of Gondor, but the son of the steward.

Aristocracy vs. laboring class:

Frodo, Merry, and Pippin were all members of the wealthy, aristocratic upper class in the Shire. None of them worked for a living. Furthermore Pippin was the heir of The Took, and Merry was the heir of "Master of Brandy Hall". That made them both "ruling class." Frodo for his part was descended from both ancestral lines.

Sam, on the other hand, was the son of a gardener. He gave orders to no-one.

Boromir, Faramir, Eomer, Eowyn, Legolas, Imrahil-- children of the ruling class. Even Strider, long before he stepped forward and began exerting his own inheritance, was the ward of a ruler-- Elrond!

Gandalf was "only" a Maia. *cough*

So how many main characters do we have that are not ruling class?

Sam. And perhaps Gimli; although he is of the 'house of Durin' I don't recall any indication that he was 'ruling class".

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

perhaps Gimli; although he is of the 'house of Durin' I don't recall any indication that he was 'ruling class".

If you look at the line of the dwarves of Erebor in appendix A of LOTR (unless it is simplified), Gimli and his father are the closest living relatives of Dain the King and his heir. Clearly it is not merely due to Gloin's prior knowledge of Rivendell that he was chosen as an emissary. Gimli was the "noblest" dwarf of Erebor.who could have reasonably been sent on the quest. He also had enough status among his own fold to become their lord when he removed with them to Aglarond.

[Eruanna]

Some of the societies in Middle Earth have echoes of the medieval period of England. In those times, war and the great decisions were seen as the province of kings and nobles and only affected the working class if they were directly involved (i.e. having to fight on their lord's behalf)

Sam is the most obviously working class member of the Fellowship. All the rest, if not nobility, were at least 'landed gentry'.
I always regard Sam as the 'everyman' character, he is meant to be us. Through his eyes we see all of the problems that beset the fellowship and we discover that nobility of heart is worth far more than a 'noble' lineage.

There is an old saying about some being born great, some achieving greatness whilst some have greatness thrust upon them. This surely sums up Sam's situation perfectly.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

If you look at the line of the dwarves of Erebor in appendix A of LOTR (unless it is simplified), Gimli and his father are the closest living relatives of Dain the King and his heir. Clearly it is not merely due to Gloin's prior knowledge of Rivendell that he was chosen as an emissary. Gimli was the "noblest" dwarf of Erebor.who could have reasonably been sent on the quest. He also had enough status among his own fold to become their lord when he removed with them to Aglarond.

Thank you, Mithalwen, I sit corrected.

Originally Posted by Eruanna

There is an old saying about some being born great, some achieving greatness whilst some have greatness thrust upon them. This surely sums up Sam's situation perfectly.

Eruanna, nice point.

[Mithalwen]

Oh I just happened to have the info to hand - I didn't "Know" until I looked - but certainly little emphasis is put on Gimli's status during the book - or indeed on Legolas' despite being (though never adressed as such) a prince. Indeed even Gandalf adresses them merely as Master Dwarf and Master Elf, and (though I don't have TTT to hand) Aragorn does not indicate their status when presenting them to Eomer either, while he makes his own rank clear. Maybe in this there is the sense that rank among the fading and dwindling races of dwarves and elves are irrelevant in the wider world?

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

If you look at the line of the dwarves of Erebor in appendix A of LOTR (unless it is simplified), Gimli and his father are the closest living relatives of Dain the King and his heir. Clearly it is not merely due to Gloin's prior knowledge of Rivendell that he was chosen as an emissary. Gimli was the "noblest" dwarf of Erebor.who could have reasonably been sent on the quest. He also had enough status among his own fold to become their lord when he removed with them to Aglarond.

Also, to build on this, Gimli is looking at inheriting a pretty sizeable fortune. Both his father and his Uncle Oin were members of Thorin's company. And while it seems that the treasure wasn't exactly split up as originally intended, all the surviving members of the company did EXTREMELY well. As near as we can tell, Gimli was Gloin's only son, and so the inheritor of his wealth. As for Oin, we are led to believe (at least, I am), that he had no offspring, and since he couldn't have carted much off to Moria, then it must have been inherited by Gloin (and thence to Gimli).

Of course, who knows whether or not Gimli was able to remove any of it to the Glittering Caves, but had he chosen to stay in Erebor, it would have been in the lap of luxury.

[Rhod the Red]

I am a great fan of Tolkein's work and after reading one critic's website about the book, I do agree that to some extent the book does sort of defend elitism. think about it:

- Absolute monarchies rule the 'West' nations, even The Shire(though the position of the Thain is ceremonial)

- The Istari are sent to help guide the West to fight Sauron but by doing so also turn a blind eye to the internal political structure of the societies. Right or wrong, they focus their attention on defending feudal societies.

- While the Western nations are absolutist in structure I do concede the rulers of each are not violently repressive of their subjects.

- There is no portrayel of internal dissent against the status quot, unless you include the woodmen of Dunland who side with Saruman against Rohan.

Most fantasy stories are set in feudal times, TLOTR is in the minority where internal political struggle is non-exsistant.

What do you think?

[tom bombariffic]

One of Tolkien's aims in writing LOTR was to create a folklore for Britain, similar to those of early Norse and Germanic European lands. That some of his languages were based on Old Norse is evident from the similarity of his languages to Old Norse; I can not read elvish but various place and character names are clearly adapted from Norse words (eg the suffix "holt" in place names, the norse word for 'wood') and some names are lifted straight out (eg the dwarf "mim", from the dwarf "mimir" in thiedrik's saga).

Most Old Norse and Old English literature was written about either royalty or gods (whether Heathen or Christian). Aside from in Iceland, very few Old Norse or Old English speakers were literate, and so those that were could gain positions of prestige by writing praise poetry for kings, or for a king's ancestors. Secondly, parchment was extremely hard to come by and very expensive, so there had to be a wealthy patron behind a poet. And thirdly, these were cultures obsessed with lineage and reputation because heroism was the greatest thing a man could be seen to have, and would be richly rewarded by a king, so the "son of- son of -" chain after names is a common feature of such literature, where people wanted their lineage to seem prestigious.

Ring-giving, drinking in the King's hall, dieing heroically - all of these are frequently recurring themes in literature of the period, to name but a few that Tolkien has adapted in his work. Given that almost all the sources he is borrowing from are written about nobility, and that writing about nobility is a tradition on Norse and Germanic folklore, it is unsurprising that he continues this tradition here.

bombariffic

(sorry if this was really incoherent and incomplete, I'm in a hurry and couldn't be bothered to start writing this again later.)

[Rhod the Red]

Who says it was one of his 'aims'? Not Tolkein himself surely? he just once complained that britain had no mythology. Not asserted he wrote The Lord of the Rings for it.

[Selmo]

Originally Posted by Dûrbelethwen

I noticed it seemed like every major character in Professor Tolkien's books about Middle Earth are of the nobility with the exception of Sam.

To fit into Tolkien's view of an ideal world, Sam is elevated to the Nobility. He becomes an important figure in The Shire, taking a leading role in the reconstruction and then as Mayor, re-elected many times. He is appointed as a King's Counsellor of The Northern Kingdom, sitting as an equal with other Lords of Arnor. Sam's eldest daughter becomes P.A. to the Queen of Gondor and Arnor, an honour only granted to families of the highest rank. Other sons and daughters marry into Hobbit aristocracy.

Sam starts out as the working-class hero but he's not allowed to remain so.
.

[tom bombariffic]

Rhod,

Tolkien's wish to create a mythology for England is asserted in Michael White's biography of him - I believe it is in a direct quote from Tolkien but I honestly can't remember, it's a while since I read it, so to be fair it could be the biographer's interpretation.

Frankly I hadn't really doubted the truth of it, to me it seems fairly clear that he is writing in the style of folklore, and Lord of the Rings is in an undeniably British setting.

I suppose "one of his aims" was a fairly flippant comment to make; like I said, I was in a hurry. But I think it's clear that he wrote deliberately in the style of folklore, and so much of the language and content mirrors the Norse mythology that he taught at Oxford, that he's obviously creating a parallel to a certain extent.

bombariffic

[Rhod the Red]

I agree he was writing in the style of folklore. But I have doubt he wrote the book to be a mythology for Britain. I have not seen any quote yet to make me beleive so.

At the moment I will merely assume he wrote it as a form of intellectual self-satisfaction. Which is usually the core reason a writer writes, among others.

[Anguirel]

Two points:

Rhod, you criticise Tolkien for defending "elitism" and "feudalism".

First, it should be remembered that these are very different things. "Elitism" means the preeminence of a meritocratic oligarchy; people chosen to oversee the fields they're best at. It's actually a pretty sensible and crucial principle, despite being bad-mouthed by socialists who haven't succeeded in achieving anything better. But I digress.

And of course, we all know about feudalism, cap-doffing, God bless you your honour, vassalage type of stuff. In my view, things can get a lot worse than feudalism run under just rulers. And you have to remember that it was essentially a choice for Middle-earth between just feudalism under Aragorn and arbitrary despotism under Sauron. There wasn't, thank goodness, a "democratic" alternative, though I'm sure Sauron was on the point of devising one...

My second point-you're forgetting, in terms of commoner heroes, the soldier Beregond. Remember that moment when Pippin assumes he's a captain and Beregond laughs?

[Lalaith]

In the tradition within which Tolkien was working - folklore, legend, ballad, myth, whatever - the thing to remember is everyone's a lord or king, or becomes one. It's not elitist if everybody does it....Yes, sometimes the hero/ine starts off in a humble position, but it always ends up with "unto half my kingdom" doesn't it...

(And in reality these nobles and "kings" of fairytale and folklore were often little more than well-to-do farmers or tribal chiefs. Their lifestyles would have been extremely rustic by our own standards.)

[JennyHallu]

A couple comments:

1) The prevalence of so many 'noble' characters may be just as much to emphasize the continuity of the story. LotR is not a stand alone tale, it is but a very long and elaborate chapter in a much greater epic, the HoME. This story spans so many generations, the nobility and bloodlines help us to see that what we do has an effect on our children, and their children, and so on, and reinforces Tolkien's belief in the power of history, and of knowing history.

2) Were Merry and Pippin really 'noble', in the strictest sense of the word? There is no real evidence that the Master and the Took are true hereditary titles, based on the law of primogeniture. We do not know that they took these titles because they were due them, or because they proved their worth.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

In my view, things can get a lot worse than feudalism run under just rulers.

This seems a rather pertinent point. In the world of Middle-earth, the rulers of the Free Peoples are generally portrayed, and must therefore be taken, as just rulers. Where they are not portrayed as worthy rulers (for example, Thedoen at first and Denethor towards the end), it is the result of malign influence.

[Rhod the Red]

Originally Posted by Anguirel

Two points:

Rhod, you criticise Tolkien for defending "elitism" and "feudalism".

First, it should be remembered that these are very different things. "Elitism" means the preeminence of a meritocratic oligarchy; people chosen to oversee the fields they're best at. It's actually a pretty sensible and crucial principle, despite being bad-mouthed by socialists who haven't succeeded in achieving anything better. But I digress.

And of course, we all know about feudalism, cap-doffing, God bless you your honour, vassalage type of stuff. In my view, things can get a lot worse than feudalism run under just rulers. And you have to remember that it was essentially a choice for Middle-earth between just feudalism under Aragorn and arbitrary despotism under Sauron. There wasn't, thank goodness, a "democratic" alternative, though I'm sure Sauron was on the point of devising one...

My second point-you're forgetting, in terms of commoner heroes, the soldier Beregond. Remember that moment when Pippin assumes he's a captain and Beregond laughs?

Elitism: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.(dictionary.com)

I didn't say he defended elitism, but pointed out the story features it.

Those two choices left out the anarchist societes of The Shire and Bree! So you're not being truthfull.

[Anguirel]

I think you'll find those radical Communists in Bree and the Shire tended to pay their taxes to Elessar, King of Arnor on time in the Fourth Age...there seems no record of them seizing Arnor while singing the Marseillaise and electing Sam Gamgee President...

[Tuor of Gondolin]

I think portraying the western polities as
"absolutist" monarchies goes too far. there
were at a minimum councils which the
kings found it necessary to consult and seek
their advice, with apparently an influence at least
that of the nobility in post-1066 England (not sure
of Anglo-Saxon politics). And if the peoples in
Northwestern middle-earth were "free" how could
they be ruled by absolutist leaders? + what is to be
made by the (apparently) pro forma acclamation of
Aragorn? It would seem to include an at least inferred
right of all the people, not only the nobility, to consent
to be the governed. And if in the course of human events
the king became abusive of their rights to (say) life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness wouldn't it be their
right to dissolve the political bands which connected them.....hmm.



Also, while Beorn's descendants were leaders were
they nobility, or chosen by the woodsmen?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Tuor of Gondolin

Also, while Beorn's descendants were leaders were
they nobility, or chosen by the woodsmen?

That is surely just the law of the jungle? When someone's Rottweiler went off with one of my hit out tennis balls, my attitude was - if the Rottie wants the ball, I'm not arguing. I am fairly sure that the woodsmen would have felt it was a good idea to let the guy who can change into a massive, dangerous bear lead if he wanted to.

[Rhod the Red]

"those radical Communists in Bree and the Shire tended to pay their taxes to Elessar" Where's your quote? I have never seen anything in Tolkein's writings regarding taxes, he left the matter out as far as I can tell. I'm reading The Lord of the Rings a 4th time, up to TROTK. In the Middle-Ages taxes were mostly only levied(legitmately in the view of all then) durin wartime. Even in the Seige of Gondor there's no mention of taxes, nor salaires.

The only connection in the Fourth Age The Shire has to the Reunited Kingdom is the law Aragorn declared that men may not enter The Shire. Nothign about taxes mentioned.

Plus I don't know what you mean by 'radical communists'. Never heard of that phrase before!

"I think portraying the western polities as
"absolutist" monarchies goes too far. there
were at a minimum councils which the
kings found it necessary to consult and seek
their advice, with apparently an influence at least
that of the nobility in post-1066 England"

The monarchy of the RU is absolutist as far as we can tell. Does the re-established Council of Gondor have powers more than simply an advisory body? No, it doesn't even have the powers of today's House of Lords! Granted, Aragorn and Denethor are not recorded by Tolkein as being violently tyrannical, but they were tyrannical in power.

"And if the peoples in Northwestern middle-earth were "free" how could
they be ruled by absolutist leaders?" The phrase 'free peoples' means not governed by Barad Dur, as far as I can seen. They were certainly free of repressive absolutism. But no one calls Scotland, the Isle of Man, Wales and Northern Ireland 'free' do they?

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Rhod the Red

I agree he was writing in the style of folklore. But I have doubt he wrote the book to be a mythology for Britain. I have not seen any quote yet to make me beleive so.

In a letter to a reader in 1956:

Having set myself a task, the arrogance of which I fully recognized and trembled at: being precisely to restore to the English an epic tradition and present them with a mythology of their own: it is a wonderful thing to be told that I have succeeded, at least with those who have still the undarkened heart and mind.

And to W.H. Auden during the same year:

I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world. The name is the modern form (appearing in the 13th century and still in use) of midden-erd > middel-erd, an ancient name for the oikoumenē, the abiding place of Men, the objectively real world, in use specifically opposed to imaginary worlds (as Fairyland) or unseen worlds (as Heaven or Hell). The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time.

A little more as to why:

Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.

[Rhod the Red]

Thank you Legolas. Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me?

[tom bombariffic]

Thanks legolas, the first was the exact quote I had been thinking of. Hats off to you, sir!

And Rhod,

Now, back to the topic. Tuor of Gondolin & Anguirel, do you have anything to say in reply to me?

Personally I dont think anyone will agree with you that Elessar was a tryrant, because tyranny denotes cruelty and oppression. Nowadays we have a tendency to view any individual ruler as having too much power, but in Tolkien's time there wasn't such opposition to royalty, and even he was looking back to a time when kings and lords were celebrated, as various people have argued above.

bombariffic

[Legolas]

I think Rhod is calling Aragorn a tyrant in the most neutral, factual sense.

By tyrant, I do not think that negative connotations are intended. A tyrant is "an absolute ruler who governs without restrictions" (www.dictionary.com); not always an oppressive dictator, one who abuses power and treats others with cruelty.

[tom bombariffic]

Huh, I suppose it depends which dictionary you read - my heinemann and OED both specify "cruelty" as a trait. Anyway, this is turning into a bit of a moot, sorry I got it all bogged down in semantics. Hoom hoom.

For me, the key factor here is that Tolkien is writing a folklore as if it was an ancient text , and is making it as realistic as possible - very little ancient literature of this sort would dare question a king, because it would result in the poet waking up very very dead, if for no other reason. Unless it was a foreign enemy king, but then they would not be endowed with Aragorn's valour and loyalty beforehand.

Finally, this is sort of stating the obvious, but it's useful to remember that The Lord Of The Rings is - supposedly - taken from Frodo's account of his own journey there and back again. Frodo is unlikely to be at all critical of Aragorn, and Tolkien is equally unlikely to distort what is written in the Red Book.

bombariffic

[Thinlómien]

I'd rather call Aragorn a sovereign than a tyrant...

[Lalaith]

On the topic of English folklore and myth, and Tolkien's attempt to create a "better" one...
There is definitely an 'everyman' tradition in real English folklore. (Put that in your pipe and it, Ang, you naughty newbie teaser...) I'm thinking of Jack the Giant Killer, which everyone always points to as the 'classic English' fairy story. Is that the sort of chap-book stuff Tolkien didn't like, I wonder?

And as for Norse literature, which tombombariffic has already mentioned...heredity was I believe even more important than in comparable Mediterranean or Asian works. Every time a new major character is brought into a saga, the first thing you learn about him is his geneaology, going back several generations, this is an essential part of who he was. Sometimes of course heredity could go horribly wrong: the villain of Njalssaga, Mordr Valgardsson, had the most impressive roster of Viking ancestors anyone could wish for. And yet he was an underhand scheming toad.
Also, despite the heredity obsession, Viking society was, as it still is, relatively egalitarian. And Anglo Saxon kings were not usually selected by primogeniture, but by council.
So a Tolkienesque emphasis on lineage doesn't necessarily mean "divine right of kings."
So what is my overall point? I'm not really sure myself, but as for the charge of Tolkien being 'elitist', the verdict seems to me to be the Scottish 'not proven'.