some thoughts, or nation in ME

[HerenIstarion]

just a bit of speculation on the subject [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]:

for the title of given topic may sound a bit strange, as JRRT himself never uses such a word in his entire ME works. And it’s just natural – the world described is like that of ours, yet of feudal age, not modern one. The hierarchical sistem is vertical (population ruling class  nobility  king) than characteristical to our period horizontal one. There are no nations, only races, as it is. Whatever difference between realms, the races are felt to be an entity – dwarves means “whole of the dwarves” and men “all of the mankind”, as well as elves or orcs. And this implication is made not only by outsiders, yet by races themselves. Possible difference in language (i.e Rivendell – Lothlorien, Rohan-Erebor), does not matter as the difference matters in the modern sence. For in modern world “nation” is described as entity of people united by language, culture, and self-definition.The self-definition of ME peoples is rather ascribed to place. Riders describe themselves as “those living in the Mark”. Those elves are elves of Lorien, and these are of Mirkwood, but they are elves allright. They may differ in status, but difference is not based on the case of them being “lorienians” or “imladrisians”. Closest to nationality in modern sense come 2 peoples – Gondorians and hobbits. Both look at outsiders as strangers, i.e Shire hobbits consider bree-landers to be queer folk, almost foreigners, as well as gondorians, who are guarding their realm, and it only, and, factually, consider the rest of the world to be of less importance then their state (Faramir as an exception). But in comes another difference. Gondor is state somehow pre-feudal, more like Roman Empire in its decline, or, even rather as Byzantium, the place of union and mingling of peoples, united by culture, while Shire is by definition state on the way of developing so-called “bourgois” society.

[Orald]

I see your point, but I think First Age Beleriand does a fine job of displaying different nations, better than Third Age at least.

Ther are the Sindar and the Noldor, and even the Sindar are divided in Elves of the Falas and those of Doriath. None of the Noldor are allowed into Doriath except for the few of Finarfin's House, and rarely did they associate with the elves of the Falas and later Balar. Also, the Green-Elves of Ossiriand didn't concern themselves with the troubles of the other elves except for the one instance they helped Thingol. Then there is Gondolin and the settlements of Feanor's son's. Both are Noldorin, but each has a sense of unity and loyalty. The Gondolindrim would be considered an extreme case of an isolationist type nation something like Japan was during the 19th century. And the Feanorean settlements didn't associate with the other Noldorin settlements very much not to mention the Sindar.

Dwarves are dwarves? Surely dwarves would be excited to see each other when the original dwarf colonies were so spread out, it would be refreshing to know that there are others of your kind out there. Granted, Dain came to the rescue of Thorin at the battle of the five armies, even though Thorin was living in the Blue Mountains at that time and Dain in the Iron hills, but they were both Longbeards, and from Moria originally. Also, did you overlook that Belegost did not come to the aid of Nogrod when they went to battle with Doriath. I would consider this very similar to the nations of today, or middle ages. The dwarves of Belegost made a very political decision here.

No time to for anything else, maybe later.

[Rimbaud]

The idea of statehood, a very new concept in the overall picture of the world, is a subject very close to my heart and as it is such, I shall return when I have thought the matter over fully. For now, here are my preliminary thoughts. Thanks Orald for the reference, I shall read through that section again, too.

As I say, statehood, or nationhood, is a very young idea. When one considers the tens of thousands of years that man developed solely as a hunter-gatherer, the then again tens of thousands of years as a micro-agriculturalist...it is only in the past few millennia that nationhood has really raised its head. Especially from a Western viewpoint, which really means, historically, a Western European viewpoint.

Tolkien played games with the settings and situations of Middle-Earth, beyond that of the standard fantasy writer. He did not constrain himself as many do (see Are there any Valid Criticisms) simply to a stereotype of medieval Europe, but created a world in a technological state that our world has never been in. Man, as one of several races of intelligence, as opposed to the only one, is expanding (and there are references to man's quick multiplication rate and the sadness that other races would be shunted aside that I may dig up later) but has not become dominant. The older races do not have the same expansionist drive. The Elves in fact, prefer a more stasis like approach to life, 'have it the same as it's always been'.

Our world developed differently, with the one over-arching species sub-fragmented into discernibly distinct races.

Indeed only in the 1800s, an eyeblink ago in real terms, there was no notion of statehood or territorial lines in Africa, until Europeans delineated such lines where there had previously been none. For the 1800s in Africa read 1600s and 1700s in the Americas.

Tolkien as a linguist and etymologist would have known all this and perhaps, I imagine, wistfully thought of a time when men were men (and I am using the words 'men' and 'man' to describe the human genus not the gender, as Tolkien does, and I mean no offence by it).

Additionally there is the simple principle that a common enemy unites. Although for instance, hobbits and men perhaps did not consider themselves 'enemies', it was certainly of mutual benefit to keep in homogenous society. Any racial interbreeding is something of an unusual aberration (Elrond Half-Elven) and nowhere is it suggested that it is widespread. By this paragraph I simply mean that within societies there are divisions but that to the outsider, that society will appear to be in closed ranks.

I shall doubtless edit this and add more later but feel free to pick this apart before I do...

It beats actually doing any work in this office that's for sure... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[Kuruharan]

dwarves means “whole of the dwarves”

But the Dwarves are divided into different Houses. It is not exactly nations but there are apparently differences between them, and the members of the same House share a degree of unity.

As best as I can understand the King of Durin's Folk has some degree of authority over all of the Longbeards, and I expect that it is the same in the other Houses, although this is more of a clanish or tribal system rather than a nation-state system.

[HerenIstarion]

a clannish or tribal system rather than a nation-state system

exactly what I wanted to point out

As for the Beleriand examples given above, the divisions are also tribal. Though Noldor are Noldor, and Doriath a kingdom they are not allowed into, there is no geographical definition of nation in Beleriand. High Kong of the Noldor is king of the Noldor this side of the sea, whatever they location may be.

To parallel it with us of today. One of my acquaintances in Paris identifies herself as French, though her father be Algerian Arab and mother Japanese, as it happens. Yet noldo is not one living in Nargothrond, but one born of Noldorin parents

And though they be come indeed to Beleriand, let them not so swiftly forget that their father is a lord of the Noldor, though their mother be of other kin.

Modern nation may forget such things as mother's kin. 'Show me your passport, man, and I'll tell you what nation you belong to' kind of defining

A bunch of stray thoughts those above, though, after more than year's break. Tear it up who will