Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
I'm inclined to interpret Aragorn's comment as the Instaneous present, meaning at the time Aragorn speaks, rather than the Timeless present. In fact, I might even say that Aragron's speech partakes of a performative declaration, which, according to Quirk and Greenbaum's A University Grammar of English, is expressed in the simple present Instaneous. But you don't have to take my word for it; I'm just the resident pedant here.
|
Forgive me for trying to out-pedant the resident pedant, but - if Aragorn's words are supposed to be in the Instantaneous Present, they can't refer to Black Riders, as these were nowhere near Bree and/or Andrath/Amrath at the time of his speaking (being unhorsed and uncloaked after the Incident at Bruinen Ford, and their present whereabouts unknown). And if he was using the Timeless Present, he can't be referring to Black Riders either, as they weren't habitually to be found within a day's march of Bree. (Also, there's the bit about "...if he [=the 'one fat man', Butterbur] were not guarded ceaselessly", which implies a constant threat.)
So I take it you're suggesting that Andrath/Amrath wasn't just a ruined town chosen by the Nazgûl as a convenient basis camp, but maybe a permanent settlement populated by 'servants of the Enemy' (possibly refugees from Angmar or remnants of the Witch-King's army who settled there after the wars?) - kind of a 'home away from home' for the Nazgûl, where the Witch-King could count on the support of his former followers or their descendants? Now that's a possibility - and it would make Aragorn's speech one of those instances where an idea from the early drafts is preserved in the final narrative with its original context either changed beyond recognition or lost altogether in the revision, but still implied if not explicitly mentioned. If so, good point!