"They Began to Hum Softly", Murray Smith

[Faramir Jones]

Thanks for the compliments, Esty and shadowfax! I was particularly interested in what the latter said here:

Originally Posted by shadowfax

If I may criticse nevertheless, I personally find the authors working definition of nationalism - and by extension nationalist music - to be very 19th and first half of 20th Century. The Anglo Saxons didn't have an equivalent of the Rule Britannia and nationalism as a whole was very different then and should be looked at more in terms of tribalism rather than identification with songs and flags. Hence the lack of such songs among most Middle-earth nations thus isn't really surprising. By having some sort of a national anthem, as Smith suggests, Gondor was thus very much ahead of its time, but having a national anthem is not in itself a qualifier for being a post enlightenment state built on nationalist principles. The national anthem of Gondor, if indeed it exists, is thus an anachronist element. Looking into this topic from that angle might have led to some interesting conclusions.

You're right that my definition of such music was of that period; because it was the period in which Tolkien was born, grew up, and fought, as did two of his three sons.

I suggested that the song sung by Aragorn sounded like a national anthem; because the indications were that Gondorians were conscious of being part of a state, although not 'a post enlightenment state built on nationalist principles'. The main reason for this consciousness amongst Gondorians appeared to be the result of having fought wars against many enemies, in particular Sauron.

The 'problem', if one likes, is that Gondor is medieval in appearance; so the idea of a 'national anthem' is anachronistic. However, no medieval European state had to cope with the fact that not only was Satan real; he also lived in a fortress not very far away, and was planning to conquer that state and make its people worship him. Despite this, the Gondorians are lacking in xenophobia towards Sauron, his followers and allies. There is no Gondorian military music shown. By contrast, there is a large amount of military music shown from their allies in Rohan. Gondorians are shown as being, or trying to be, more 'civilized'.

Tolkien can be said to be guilty of a similar, though different anachronism, in his portrayal of the Hobbits of the Shire. He admitted as much in a letter of 25th September 1954 to Naomi Mitchison, that his deliberate attempt to make the Shire resemble an English village in 1897 led him into inconcistencies in portraying the hobbits, in particular ‘Some of the modernities found among them (I think especially of umbrellas)’. They are ‘probably, I think certainly, a mistake, of the same order as their silly names'; both are tolerable only as ‘a deliberate ‘anglicization’ to point the contrast between them and other peoples in the most familiar terms’. He did not think people ‘of that sort and stage of life and development’ could be both ‘very peaceable and very brave and tough ‘at a pinch’'. Experience in two wars ‘has confirmed me in that view’ (Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter 154, p. 196).

[shadowfax]

Hi Faramir,

Thanks for responding... and also well met and thanks for the excellent article.

This topic is extremely fascinating and I don't really know where to start.

The anachronism aspect is interesting. Tolkien was writing about an imaginary world in a long gone era, but doing so through he eyes of a modern man living in an age defined by totally different values and attitudes. I was aware of the Shire anachronisms, ranging from Bilbo's manner of dressing to umbrellas and even touching on the post renaissance instruments of the dwarves (which are strangely not re-mentioned once outside the Shire and can so be considered part of the Shire anachronism as much as they are part of the dwarves' identity). But besides artefacts, I hadn't considered that there might also be anachronisms in terms of attitudes and values. This is definitely a topic deserving further study.

Much of Middle-earth was a feudal society. Men were not free in the manner that we consider freedom today but served their masters, to the point of following them into war and dying on the battlefield - without questioning the necessity of their sacrifice. The Shire may have been a little freer but basically anywhere else we so no evidence of any common man having had any choice in the matter. They were thus fighting for their lord and master before they were fighting for Gondor or for the West. In my opinion it was the beakdown of the feudal system that led to some vacuum and caused nationalism. People no longer had a compelling reason to obey their masters and nationalism with all its symbols and flags and music was a necessity to fill in this gap and continue to make war possible in a society that was otherwise elightened and free.

Concerning the enemy being Satan in person, I don't know how any state of this world would react to that situation. But presumably it would lead to totally different attitudes. However, that is a question of theology. If you're fighting somebody, you're first of all fighting an enemy, and that this enemy is Satan is only a second argument after that. If somebody is out to kill you, you fight for your life, no matter whether that enemy is Satan himself or a mouse on steroids or a bearded guy in a cave in Afghanistan. Besides which, propganda machines always try to paint the enemy as Satan incarnate. Look at what the media made of Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein to cite just some recent examples. So where this argument is leading me is the question, does it make a difference if for once the propganda machine is right and the enemy really is Satan. Does the common man or the collective psyche see through the propaganda and still make the difference? An interesting question.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by shadowfax

...the post renaissance instruments of the dwarves (which are strangely not re-mentioned once outside the Shire and can so be considered part of the Shire anachronism as much as they are part of the dwarves' identity).

The chapter on instruments in Middle-earth touches upon this subject, discussing the kinds of instruments used by the Dwarves and even suggesting just when they disappeared from the story - an interesting detail!

[shadowfax]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

The chapter on instruments in Middle-earth touches upon this subject, discussing the kinds of instruments used by the Dwarves and even suggesting just when they disappeared from the story - an interesting detail!

yes, I know. I was actually thinking of your chapter and also your talk in Jena when I wrote that.

[Faramir Jones]

Shadowfax, I'm glad that you enjoyed my article, and agree completely that the topic is 'extremely fascinating'.

In terms of what you said about anachronisms here:

Originally Posted by shadowfax

The anachronism aspect is interesting. Tolkien was
writing about an imaginary world in a long gone era, but doing so through he
eyes of a modern man living in an age defined by totally different values and
attitudes. I was aware of the Shire anachronisms, ranging from Bilbo's manner
of dressing to umbrellas and even touching on the post renaissance instruments
of the dwarves (which are strangely not re-mentioned once outside the Shire and
can so be considered part of the Shire anachronism as much as they are part of
the dwarves' identity). But besides artefacts, I hadn't considered that there
might also be anachronisms in terms of attitudes and values. This is definitely
a topic deserving further study.

When I began to seriously study history, I realised (like so many others) that to attempt to understand what went on in a particular period, I needed to look beyond the fact that people looked and talked differently, and to look at, as you said, their 'attitudes and values'.

Originally Posted by shadowfax

Much of Middle-earth was a feudal society. Men were not free in the manner that we consider freedom today but served their masters, to the point of following them into war and dying on the battlefield - without questioning the necessity of their sacrifice. The Shire may have been a little freer but basically anywhere else we so no evidence of any common man having had any choice in the matter. They were thus fighting for their lord and master before they were fighting for Gondor or for the West. In my opinion it was the beakdown of the feudal system that led to some vacuum and caused nationalism. People no longer had a compelling reason to obey their masters and nationalism with all its symbols and flags and music was a necessity to fill in this gap and continue to
make war possible in a society that was otherwise elightened and free.

But is it a feudal system as we understand it when people, such as the Gondorians, have been fighting a foe like Sauron for thousands of years? It appears that there is an element of 'nationalism' in terms of a recognition by Gondorians that the kingdom is a seperate entity from any king; so Gondor has survived for centuries as a state even with a vacant throne. When Pippin swears allegiance, he first and significantly swears allegience to Gondor, and only second to Denethor II as Steward.

Originally Posted by shadowfax

Concerning the enemy being Satan in person, I don't know how any state of this world would react to that situation. But presumably it would lead to totally different attitudes. However, that is a question of theology. If you're fighting somebody, you're first of all fighting an enemy, and that this enemy is Satan is only a second argument after that. If somebody is out to kill you, you fight for your life, no matter whether that enemy is Satan himself or a mouse on steroids or a bearded guy in a cave in Afghanistan. Besides which, propganda machines always try to paint the enemy as Satan incarnate. Look at what the media made of Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein to cite just some recent examples. So where this argument is leading me is the question, does it make a
difference if for once the propganda machine is right and the enemy really is Satan. Does the common man or the collective psyche see through the propaganda and still make the difference? An interesting question.

An interesting question, indeed. I disagree that fighting Sauron would be merely a 'question of theology'. Sauron is an enemy, of course; but unlike the people you mentioned he is both immortal and of divine origin. Not only can he live forever; it appears that he cannot be 'killed' in any conventional sense. This makes him thousands of times more formidable than any other tyrant; because those you've mentioned were and are mortal Men, doomed to die. This did make a difference, such as when the Mongols looked as if they would overrun Western Europe, they were stopped by the death of the Great Khan Ögedei in 1241. In Sauron's case, not only do you have the same person around; that person can afford to wait a long time for things to turn in his favour. He waited for centuries in the Third Age until Gondor began to decline and the watch it kept on Mordor ended. The Gondorians, Rohirrim and other enemies can't wait, as they would for a mortal foe, for him to either die, or to grow old and want to spend time with the grandchildren.

There's also the problem of what to do with Sauron if, by a remote chance, he was defeated. Keeping him as a POW would be too risky, considering what he did in Númenor in the Second Age. All he needs to do is to wait a couple of generations for those who knew him as an enemy to die off, and let people grow up who might feel sorry for him. We can also look back and see the havoc his former master, Morgoth, wreaked in Valinor after he was released. The only way to keep him harmless when he was overcome again at the end of the First Age was to imprison him outside of Arda, casting him out beyond the Walls of Night.

Even if Sauron is not imprisoned, but a decision made to execute him instead, is such a thing possible? Can a Maia (or former Maia) be killed?

There are two disadvantages to being an immortal tyrant. First, you have accumulated a huge number of atrocities to your name over thousands of years. (I'm sure that Sauron would have made Mao and Stalin look pathetic by comparison.) You're therefore easy to hate. For example, I'm sure that the Gondorians haven't forgotten the betrayal of their last king.

Second, because you've been around so long, your enemies will have amassed a large amount of information about you. Know your enemy is an basic maxim of warfare. I believe that Aragorn II learnt a lot about Sauron, from written and oral sources, as well as from his own travels, and was thus able to use that knowledge to confront him using the Stone of Orthanc, and persuade him that he might have the Ring, encouraging him to make a premature attack on Gondor.

[Bêthberry]

A most interesting discussion to develop out of the essay, which I, like Estelyn and shadowfax, have enjoyed reading. Thank you, Faramir, for it.

Originally Posted by Faramir Jones

[But is it a feudal system as we understand it when people, such as the Gondorians, have been fighting a foe like Sauron for thousands of years? It appears that there is an element of 'nationalism' in terms of a recognition by Gondorians that the kingdom is a seperate entity from any king; so Gondor has survived for centuries as a state even with a vacant throne. When Pippin swears allegiance, he first and significantly swears allegience to Gondor, and only second to Denethor II as Steward.

If I may, I'd like to interject an observation here about the separation of king and kingdom. Or, in the case of my example, Duke and Duchy.

In our life time I have heard the current heir to the English throne, Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, refer to himself as "Cornwall." It was a television show some years back about the agricultural practices he had instituted and he was commenting on pictures and videos that showed him amidst some of the farms. Charles very clearly did not say, "Here you will see that I have . . ." It was always "Cornwall", as in "Here Cornwall discusses with . . . .". Charles was of course speaking of the old bond whereby the king is the kingdom. So if Charles at the end of the Twentieth Century could still name himself as Cornwall, I would think that, at the mid of the twentieth century Tolkien might very well still be applying that old concept. If this is the case, then Pippin's oath to Gondor was also to the King, even though absent.

The point may be a small one, but it perhaps is one reason why I have never particularly thought of Gondor as a modern nation state. To me, it's more like one of those Italian 'city states.' (Possibly I think this because of its geography, the latitude something like Venice's.)

Perhaps I can also say that Aragorn's song or poem, "Gondor, Gondor", has never struck me as a national anthem, but more rather a lament. It reminds me instead of the Old English poem "The Ruin" with its longing for a greatness that has fallen away. Aragorn gives to his song a hope that the greatness shall be rebuilt, but I think it is the past tense verbs with which the song begins--blew, fell--which recall to me the ancient theme of mutability. To that mutability Aragorn brings, of course, hope. Yet the poem remains a lament for lost glory, which is not something I normally associate with national anthems.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Perhaps I can also say that Aragorn's song or poem, "Gondor, Gondor", has never struck me as a national anthem, but more rather a lament. It reminds me instead of the Old English poem "The Ruin" with its longing for a greatness that has fallen away. Aragorn gives to his song a hope that the greatness shall be rebuilt, but I think it is the past tense verbs with which the song begins--blew, fell--which recall to me the ancient theme of mutability. To that mutability Aragorn brings, of course, hope. Yet the poem remains a lament for lost glory, which is not something I normally associate with national anthems.

I always wondered what that song was. It is drenched with sorrow. It feels like a song of exile. He is, at that moment, tearing himself away from a friendly hope (He and Boromir had planned to go there: "I would have begged you to come," said Frodo. "Only I thought you were going with Boromir to Minas Tirith.") After Aragorn finishes singing, he turns ("Now let us go") and pushes himself into further effort and exile.

[Faramir Jones]

I'm glad that you liked my article, Bêthberry.

Your last post was very interesting. First, regarding the reference to a monarch by his territorial title:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

If I may, I'd like to interject an observation here about the separation of king and kingdom. Or, in the case of my example, Duke and Duchy.

In our life time I have heard the current heir to the English throne, Charles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, refer to himself as "Cornwall." It was a television show some years back about the agricultural practices he had instituted and he was commenting on pictures and videos that showed him amidst some of the farms. Charles very clearly did not say, "Here you will see that I have . . ." It was always "Cornwall", as in "Here Cornwall discusses with . . . .". Charles was of course speaking of the old bond whereby the king is the kingdom. So if Charles at the end of the Twentieth Century could still name himself as Cornwall, I would think that, at the mid of the twentieth century Tolkien might very well still be applying that old concept. If this is the case, then Pippin's oath to Gondor was also to the King, even though absent.

The point may be a small one, but it perhaps is one reason why I have never particularly thought of Gondor as a modern nation state. To me, it's more like one of those Italian 'city states.' (Possibly I think this because of its geography, the latitude something like Venice's.).

I recall that Shakespeare's plays have a lot of such references to monarchs by their territories. In 'Anthony and Cleopatra', the dying Mark Anthony, in Act 4, Scene 15, says to Cleopatra, 'I am dying, Egypt, dying;' In Act I, Scene 1, of 'King Lear', the two suitors of Cordelia are the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy, referred to by their territorial designations of 'France' and 'Burgundy'.

That said, the oath Pippin swears explicitly refers to Gondor as a state; because he then swears allegiance to Denethor, who is called 'Steward' to the 'High King'. This is because there is no king, the throne being vacant.

I was amused when you said that you thought Gondor was more like an Italian 'city state'. Tolkien, with his daughter Priscilla, visited Italy, including Venice, from late July to mid-August 1955, and would in a later letter compare Venice to Gondor. In it, he thanked his correspondent for his letter, saying it came 'while I was away, in Gondor (sc. Venice)'. (Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter 168, p. 223.)

Such Italian city states were quite sophisticated, and saw themselves as the inheritors of Roman republicanism and its virtues. From this sense of the past developed the idea of a national, Italian, patriotism. Writers such as Dante and Petrarch equated Italy with Rome, and Italian with Latin. This was particularly the case from the time of the Renaissance.

That said, this Italian national sentiment was something new, despite its use of the past. For one thing, it was very interested in something that the Romans professed to despise: trade. According to one historian:

The Italians indeed had a 'Middle Age' but not as reborn Romans. They were the businessmen of Christendom, pursuing trade not empire, freedom not dominion, the European leaders in economic innovation, commercial and financial growth, merchantile morality, emancipation and power - in short, the acknowledged progenitors, recognised in a tradition of centuries perfected by Adam Smith and Marx, of Western Capitalism, individualism and democracy. The country closest to Rome was also the most modern. (Philip James Jones, The Italian City-State: From Commune to Signoria, (Oxford: OUP, 2004), p. 54.)

Second, about Aragorn's song or poem:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Perhaps I can also say that Aragorn's song or poem, "Gondor, Gondor", has never struck me as a national anthem, but more rather a lament. It reminds me instead of the Old English poem "The Ruin" with its longing for a greatness that has fallen away. Aragorn gives to his song a hope that the greatness shall be rebuilt, but I think it is the past tense verbs with which the song begins--blew, fell--which recall to me the ancient theme of mutability. To that mutability Aragorn brings, of course, hope. Yet the poem remains a lament for lost glory, which is not something I normally associate with national anthems.

While it is in the style of a lament, that doesn't mean that such a song could not be a national anthem. It's true that most national anthems tend to talk about how great the relevant country is, shown particularly in the title of the Danish national anthem, 'There is a lovely land'. In the film Borat, there is a version of the national anthem of Kazakhstan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixavbzGylcU

which says that not only is this country the best in the world; all other countries are run by 'little girls'. It's a spoof of what is often sung.

That said, there are other national anthems that don't fit into this mould. One which I specifically mentioned in my essay was that of Poland, 'Poland Has Not Perished Yet'. It was composed in 1797, two years after Poland disappeared as an independent state. This is one translation of its first verse:

Poland has not perished yet
So long as we still live
That which alien force has seized
We at sabrepoint shall retrieve.

It expressed the idea that the nation of Poland had not disappeared, as long as the Polish people lived and fought in its name. In 1926, some years after Poland re-emerged as an independent state, it became that country's national anthem.

While I didn't call the song 'Gondor, Gondor' a national anthem, I said that it had the elements of one, using this Polish example.